Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Is it in order that we have to object when what we want is proper parliamentary scrutiny, and when we are not necessarily against the principle of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of order that I should like time to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Intervention Board

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the operations of the Intervention Board.

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of what commodities have been bought by the Intervention Board since it was set up; and how these commodities have been disposed of.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The Intervention Board became operational on 1st February this year. The main activities of the board in these early stages have been concerned with its import-export licensing functions, with the subsidy for the denaturing of wheat

and with the purchase of skimmed milk powder. At the end of March 5,874 tons of skimmed milk powder and 21 tons of butter had been offered to the board. The question of disposal, which is co-ordinated at Community level, does not yet arise in respect of these stocks.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of what has happened over the sale of cheap butter to Russia, the British housewife now regards the Intervention Board as public enemy No. 1? May we know what further villainies are contemplated by this board at the expense of the British standard of living?

Mr. Stodart: The Intervention Board is carrying out a different system of support-ting producers' prices.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister give a clear assurance that this board will in no circumstances deliberately render food unfit for human consumption?

Mr. Stodart: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, I cannot and will not give that assurance. It has been the custom in this country for wheat to be fed to animals and for other feedingstuffs to be rendered unfit for human consumption on many occasions, even in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement credited to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that meat is being bought up by the Intervention Board for the purpose of destroying it? Is this true, or not?

Mr. Stodart: I read that statement and found it hard to believe my eyes. I can only repeat the reply that the right hon. Gentleman was given on television last Friday night, after 20 minutes' discussion —that he had been talking absolute and utter rubbish.

Mr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that there are about 150,000 tons of butter in stock in Britain, and that about 10 per cent. will be taken by the Intervention Board on 1st May? Will not that mean that the butter producers will make £500,000 profit overnight? Is it not absolutely ridiculous to build a butter mountain in Britain in view of the European situation?

Mr. Stodart: I cannot confirm that there are 150,000 tons of butter in cold stores, but that is a perfectly normal quantity to have at this time. I cannot say whether it will be taken into intervention.

Cereals Guarantees

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give at least 12 months' notice of the date on which the cereals guarantees will end.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. Any decision to abolish the guarantees for cereals is likely to be taken immediately after the annual review and thus well in advance of the succeeding crop year to which it would apply. The guarantees must be ended when producers' incomes from Community prices in the United Kingdom exceed those from the guarantees.

Mr. Strang: I think the Minister means when they exceed the "intervention prices". Will he give the assurance that as long as the producers' average returns are higher than the corresponding intervention prices the Government will not withdraw the deficiency payments on cereals? If he cannot give that assurance, will he at least assure us that if he is not required to remove them under Article 54 of the Treaty of Accession he will give 12 months' notice of any unilateral decision by the British Government to remove them?

Mr. Stodart: As the hon. Member knows, the guarantees have to be phased out, and they will go as soon as the United Kingdom intervention price equals or exceeds the guarantees. Of course, the intervention prices here rise each year as the compensatory amounts are phased out.

Sugar

Mr. John: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union on sugar production and prices; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): We are in constant touch with the NFU both during the annual review and at other

times of the year in regard to sugar as well as other commodities.

Mr. John: Has the Minister seen the statement reported in the Farmer and Stockbreeder on 31st March on behalf of the NFU criticising the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and looking forward to higher profits for the growing of beet sugar? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that he is not prepared to ditch the Commonwealth sugar producers or neglect our duty to those countries and, secondly, that he will not sacrifice the consumer further in the pursuit of higher farm profits? Will he sweeten the Tory pill of rising prices at least to that extent?

Mr. Godber: I am puzzled by the hon. Member's question. On the one hand he begins by talking of criticism of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement by producers and then he asks me to confirm that we shall be looking after Commonwealth sugar producers. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will continue on the present basis until the end of 1974 under protocol 17 of the Treaty of Accession. Arrangements for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement thereafter will be based on protocol 22 of the treaty, which will be a matter for negotiation by the Commonwealth producers. This is a matter on which we had recent discussion with the Commonwealth producers.
As for the home producers, their position, based on the 900,000 tons a year which was the whole allocation under Quota A, is negotiated under the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom consumption of sugar will increase beyond 1975 and that in these circumstances, assuming the same rate of sugar imports from the Commonwealth, British beet producers will be able to look forward to supplying at least the same but probably an increasing tonnage?

Mr. Godber: I certainly hope and expect to negotiate a position in which they will be supplying a greater tonnage than at present. I am sure that is the wish of the British producers. The position after 1974 has not yet been discussed, but the present Commonwealth quota has been about 1,700,000 tons. The


Australian part of that quota, which represents about 300,000 tons, will not be continuing and therefore there should be room, without any increase in consumption, for a substantial increase in home production.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sugar situation in Europe is not very different from that relating to butter and that a few years ago 1 million tons of sugar were sold at world prices, subsidised by the taxpayers of Europe? Is the Minister now saying that British farmers should grow more sugar so that it can be exported at low prices, in the same way as butter has been exported to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Godber: I am not saying that. The present world price of sugar is high, and there is a world shortage. Since the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was signed there have been arrangements for the purchase of sugar by this country from overseas, as well as arrangements for home-produced sugar which in many cases have been at prices substantially above world prices in order to help the producers in this country. I would wish to continue that arrangement.

EEC Farm Prices

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC farm price review.

Mr. Dan Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to increases of food prices proposed in the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC farm prices for 1973.

Mr. Godber: The Council of the Agricultural Ministers of the Community continued its discussions on 9th and 10th April on the proposals for changes in farm prices and the related proposals for adjustments in monetary arrangements. It also gave further consideration to proposals for encouraging a switch from milk to beef production, and for aid to producers in hill and maintain

areas. All these questions were examined in some detail, but no final decisions were reached. The council will meet again on 16th and 17th April.

Mr. Marten: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his very tough stand in attempting to keep prices frozen as far as possible with no general broad increase? If my right hon. Friend succeeds in that endeavour he will have the support not only of the House but of the whole country. On a constitutional matter, now that the European Assembly has pronounced itself against the proposal of the Commission, what notice does the Council of Ministers take of the European Assembly's decision?

Mr. Godber: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. On the constitutional point, I think the position is that the European Parliament has an advisory rôle in this respect, but certainly the Council of Ministers takes due note of what it says. This matter has figured in discussions in Luxembourg this week. I cannot at the moment forecast what the final outcome of the discussions will be, but they are continuing next week.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that many of us in the House, and certainly people in the country, believe that the ability to control United Kingdom food prices is now more a matter for the Council of Ministers than for any United Kingdom Government? A frank statement to that effect from the Minister today would be gratifying.

Mr. Godber: The Council of Ministers has a duty within the Community to determine price levels, and that is what we are engaged on at the present time. Certainly, at the end of the transition period these decisions will be reflected in United Kingdom prices. At present this is not the position, because we have this staged arrangement over the five years, during which prices are gradually raised. Therefore, any arrangements arrived at this year in Brussels will have only a marginal effect on United Kingdom prices now.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the next time the disposal of surplus food stocks arises the British delegates will feel free to vote?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend does not appear fully to appreciate the position. The British delegates felt perfectly free to vote on the last occasion. They decided to abstain in the company of one other country, no country voting against. The British delegates decided to abstain for a number of reasons. These quantities had been produced before we became members, there was the question of deterioration of stocks, and the Commission has to judge what are the best steps to take when a surplus has been created. It was for the Commission to decide the correct way in which to deal with this.

Mr. Deakins: Since the main purpose of the common agricultural policy is to produce higher incomes for farmers, which must inevitably mean higher prices for consumers, will the Minister in his study and review of the CAP from now on, and particularly at next week's meeting, press for a consumer price review so that the Common Market may at least begin to take some steps to stabilise food prices to the consumer.

Mr. Godber: The question of the consumer has been much in mind in all our discussions in Brussels. It was at the British instigation at the November meeting that a provision was inserted into the resolution approved by a joint meeting of the Finance and Agriculture Ministers earlier that the position of the consumer should be constantly borne in mind. At our meeting in Luxembourg this week and again at the meeting of OECD Agriculture Ministers in Paris yesterday I reiterated the strong view that we must take account of the position of the consumer in all the decisions that have to be taken, and this is very much in our minds.

Mr. Brewis: If the Opposition want to fight in favour of holding down consumer food prices, would it not be better if they attended the European Parliament, where they would reinforce the Conservatives with their votes and counteract the votes by the Liberal representatives?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that Labour Members were very anxious to cash in on the actions of Conservative Members, and it it a pity that they did not go over and take part.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister tell us what would be the effectiveness of adopting the course he has suggested, since the European Parliament is disregarded and since our representatives abstained? Will he tell us just what value we are getting out of the European Parliament? Does he agree that the present EEC policy has now slid into ridicule, down the slippery slopes of the monstrous mountain of butter, and that the £12 million that this will cost the British taxpayer could have provided every old-age pensioner with a quarter of a pound of free butter every week between now and the end of the year?

Mr. Stodart: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. If he and his colleagues took part it would help to make the European Parliament more effective. It is not a bit of good saying—[Interruption.] Opposition hon. Members do not seem very clear about the position. It was not in the European Parliament that any abstention took place. They should at least understand the way in which these things work. In the Parliament a clear decision was taken. The abstention took place in the Management Committee on Milk Products, acting for the Commission. That was a perfectly proper action to take, and I have given the reasons for it.
The way in which the Labour Party has acted has not helped the Government in seeking to influence the European Parliament in a way which would help consumers in terms of food prices in the Community.

Prices

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in the average price of beef, in pence per lb. in the period July 1972 to March 1973; and what was the comparable figure from July 1969 to March 1971.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): From July 1972 to February 1973, the latest available date, the retail price of home-killed and imported beef increased by between 7p and 12p a lb. according to cut, and from July 1969 to March 1971, for home-killed beef only, by between 4p and 7p a lb., according to cut. Retail prices


for imported beef are not available for July 1969.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady talking about new pence in both cases? Is she aware that according to the official figures the price of chuck steak went up 72·6p in the pound from the General Election to February of this year, and that the price of brisket, one of the cheapest cuts, went up in the same period by 96·7p in the pound? Is that what the Prime Minister promised when he said that he would reduce prices at a stroke? Has not a scandalous confidence trick been played on the gullible public? Does the hon. Lady realise that the answer to my questions will be forthcoming in today's elections?

Mrs. Fenner: I shall have to check the hon. Gentleman's figures, which go back to 1970. His Question relates to entirely different periods. I have noticed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, the action that has been taken by housewives in America—a meat-importing country —and the action taken by housewives in Australia—a meat-exporting country. He must know that we cannot be insulated against world conditions which produce fluctuations at each end of the scale.

Mr. Body: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman that the cause of the increases arises from what he has advocated, namely, our entry into the Common Market? Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we were still in the world market for meat, as are Greece and Japan, we would find the retail price slightly lower?

Mrs. Fenner: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's comment is not accurate.

Mr. Torney: Is the hon. Lady aware that the tremendous slaughter of French cattle in 1970—which is allied to the present butter fiasco, because the slaughter of cattle was meant to diminish the butter surplus—is partly the cause of the present shortage of beef? Is she aware that the French were paying £100 a head extra for the slaughter of cattle? That resulted in the present shortage. Coupled with that, until quite recently we exported beef to France and other Common Market countries. Does not the hon. Lady agree that if that had not been done there would have been an easement of the position?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that would have had only a marginal effect. Clearly, the fact that we are expanding our beef production by 10 per cent. and at the same time expanding our dairy production by only 3 per cent. indicates that beef production can be increased without a corresponding increase of dairy production.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices in the first quarter of 1973.

Mr. Godber: Between 12th December 1972 and 20th February 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 3·8 per cent. The March results will be published on 21st April.

Mr. Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a scathing indictment of the Government's freeze policy? Does he realise that we are talking about a period during which wages, pensions and allowances were not allowed to rise? Yet the Government sit idly back and allow food prices to rise, further depressing the living standards of the people. Can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend such a Conservative Government?

Mr. Godber: I could defend a Conservative Government in the same way as, presumably, the hon. Member defended his own Government when they had a standstill and food prices were also allowed to rise. The position is comparable, but there is one important difference between then and now, namely, that world prices have risen and world shortages have occurred. This has led to prices rising here substantially. Since the hon. Member has brought in the question of earnings, let me remind him that earnings have risen substantially more than prices during the period since we have been in office.

Mr. Raison: Is it not a fact that the last Labour Government introduced a tax on food—SET—and also increased purchase tax? Can my right hon. Friend say what effect the abolition of these two taxes has had on food prices?

Mr. Godber: The removal of these taxes, which were imposed or increased by the then Labour Government, will


take £120 million from the housewives' shopping bill for food. All food is now free of tax as a result of the actions of this Government.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the effect upon old-age pensioners of these rises in food prices? Will he persuade members of the Government to stop boasting about the miserable £1 which they will attach to old-age pensions in the autumn, because that increase will rapidly be overtaken? Is he further aware that old people are very much affected by increases in the cost of food?

Mr. Godber: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as concerned as he is about the condition of old-age pensioners. I recognise the problems affecting them. The Government have increased pensions more rapidly and by greater amounts than any previous Government. At present, the pension purchases substantially more than it did when we came into office. We have already announced a further increase for October. These are the facts, as shown by the official statistics. Having said that, I do not deny for a moment that there are great problems for pensioners, which we have done our best to mitigate.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the price per pound of beef at the latest available date compared with the same day 12 months ago.

Mrs. Fenner: As there are a number of figures in the reply, I will, with permission circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Buchanan: While I await the figures being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I suppose that I can take it for granted that the price of beef has risen considerably. Does the Minister realise that the Government have taken beef off the tables of millions of people in Britain?

Mrs. Fenner: Between February 1972 and February 1973 the retail price of home-killed and imported beef increased by between 11p and 19p according to cut. That was up until February 1973. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed a great easing in beef prices over the last month. He can, in fact, buy topside at

54p a pound from one major butchery chain.

Mr. Molloy: When the hon. Lady was appointed to her post there were clarion calls that she would be the watchdog on prices. All the women thought that this time the Government might be speaking the truth. But the hon. Lady has done nothing. Will she explain what she has been trying to do, give us the reason for her failure and then resign?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that I have not been appointed watchdog of the interests of the American housewives, who find their beef prices rising, or of the Australian housewives, who are boycotting beef on 17th April.

Following is the information:



February 1972 (p per lb.)
 February 1973 (p per lb.)


beef (home-killed)


Chuck
38·9
54·9


Sirloin (without bone)
54·9
74·0


Silverside (without bone)✶
50·6
65·4


Back ribs (with bone)✶
35·3
49·5


Fore ribs (with bone)
34·5
48·4


Brisket (with bone)
23·4
35·8


Rump steak
69·1
87·7


Beef (imported chilled)


Chuck
35·1
47·5


Silverside (without bone)✶
43·1
56·5


Rump steak✶
57·4
68·2


✶ Or Scottish equivalent.

Source: General Index of Retail Prices.

Department of Employment

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of fresh food, and in fresh fruit and vegetables, respectively, since the beginning of the freeze.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much fresh food prices have risen since the freeze began on 6th November.

Mr. Godber: There is no retail price index for fresh foods as such. However, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the percentage increase in the main sub-groups of the food index between 14th November 1972 and 20th February 1973, the latest date for which information is available.

Mr. Clark: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a fantastic increase


in the price of fresh foods? How can he reconcile that increase with the freeze of workers' wages? Will he tell me what advice I can give to my constituents when they ask, "What can we do when we see tomatoes at 50p a pound?"

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman should give them the advice he gave them in 1968 and 1969, when the price of seasonal foods rose at a similar rate. I suggest that he should also remind his constituents that the rise in the annual rate is nothing like so large as he and his hon. Friends pretend.

Mr. John Fraser: If the price of food continues to rise for reasons beyond the Government's control, will the Minister approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a bridging grant to housewives to meet the cost?

Mr. Godber: We have explained to the House again and again the position in regard to food. I have also reminded the House again and again that earnings have continued to rise substantially more than prices throughout our period in office. That remains the position and, therefore, there is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Following is the information:


Per cent.


Increase in the Index of Retail Food Prices between 14th November 1972 and 20th February 1973 of which
5·4


(a) items the prices of which show significant seasonal variations
12·4


(b) others of which
4·0


(i) items mainly home-produced for direct consumption
9·1


(ii) items mainly imported for direct consumption
4·7


(iii) items manufactured in the United Kingdom
1·0

Notes:

(a) The items the prices of which show significant seasonal variations include home-killed lamb, fresh and smoked fish, eggs, fresh vegetables and fresh fruit.

(b)(i) The items mainly home-produced for direct consumption include home-killed beef, pork, ox liver, chicken and fresh milk.

(b)(ii) The items mainly imported for direct consumption include imported beef and lamb, calves liver, bacon, ham, canned meat and fish, butter, lard, cheese, tea, dried fruit and canned fruit (other than fruit salad).

Cereals (Import Levies)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will suspend forthwith all import levies on cereals imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir, because as a member of the European Economic Community we must abide by the obligations which we have accepted.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any proposed action can have a marked effect on prices and the cost of living? Is he telling the House that as a consequence of our entry into the Common Market we have given up any power and that as a consequence, irrespective of the circumstances, prices must be let rip?

Mr. Stodart: No. The hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that prices are being pushed up. The transitional arrangements for cereals mean that the prices of our imports will be those of 1971–72, or the world price, if the latter is higher.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's discussion in the Council of Ministers? Leaving aside the farcical proceedings at the European Parliament, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is now prepared to use the veto to prevent further increases in prices? Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend now, so that he can give an answer from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that question bears any relation to the original Question.

Farms (Capital Investment)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparison he has made between the relative benefit to farmers of the 20 per cent. capital grant scheme Available in the United Kingdom and the cheap credit schemes available for capital investment in other countries of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No precise comparison can be made because of the wide


variety of terms and conditions for investment assistance in other countries, but on a broad view our grants compare fairly with what is given by other member States.

Mr. Morrison: Will my hon. Friend say whether, in addition to our own schemes, our farmers will be eligible for any form of assistance from the Common Market under FEOGA?

Mr. Stodart: As I have said, this is a slightly imprecise comparison to make. I should find it easier to write to my hon. Friend and explain the position to him.

Mr. Deakins: To what extent are higher interest rates in Great Britain, which stem direct from the Government's financial policy in recent years, likely to hinder the progress of British farming in improving productivity in the way that it has been improving since the war?

Mr. Stodart: We have no indication at the moment. That is a highly speculative question. I have no reason to suppose that the investment that has taken place will slow down.

Commonwealth Sugar

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the EEC following the meeting in London of trade ministers from Commonwealth sugar-producing countries.

Mr. Godber: There has not yet been any discussion within the Community on the specific issues arising out of the recent conference of Commonwealth sugar-exporting countries. Negotiations for the period after 1974 will be a matter for the Commonwealth countries themselves, and they have now set up a standing committee in London to co-ordinate their aproach to the Community.

Mr. Judd: In view of the Government's unhappy experience with the EEC agricultural policy to date, is this not the time to make it absolutely plain and beyond all doubt that the guarantee of the British Government to ensure the access of Commonwealth sugar to the EEC, at least at the present level, is absolute, that we shall never surrender

to the French sugar beet lobby, and that if need be, when the time comes, we are prepared to exercise a veto?

Mr. Godber: The matter was completely covered by the discussions which we had at Lancaster House the week before last and by the communique issued afterwards. The Commonwealth countries concerned are in full accord with the United Kingdom Government's view. There is no need for me to add anything to that. The provisions of protocol 22, Article 3, set out precisely the arrangements to be entered into by the Commonwealth countries concerned. We have been having discussions with them, but it is for them to make the initial move. We, as members of the Community, will be playing an important part in the resolution of the problems on the lines—I trust—which the hon. Member has indicated.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is one little link missing in all of this? Cannot the Common Market adhere to the Lancaster House agreement and say outright, "We accept it", and not "have it at heart", or whatever the translation is? Let it sign it and say that it accepts it whole-heartedly.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that this matter was fully dealt with at the time of the Treaty of Accession. There is no point in reopening it now. The important thing is that the Commonwealth countries shall work together in this matter. That was the whole purpose of my discussions with them the week before last. They are fully in agreement with our views about this question and I do not see any need to take further action, other than to keep in the closest touch with the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Mr. Jay: Will the British Government be represented, as the British Government, in the negotiations on the International Sugar Agreement which are to begin very shortly and about which we have been given no information in this House?

Mr. Godber: The International Sugar Agreement is an entirely different matter. We were talking about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The British Government will be playing their part as


members of the Community, which is the correct way for us to handle what is an international arrangement affecting us and the other members of the Community. We will be fully involved.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend hope to see the nine members of the Community become signatories to the International Sugar Agreement, since this is of vital importance? When the Australian quota for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ends in 1974, does my right hon. Friend envisage that it will be gradually phased out, as would be desirable, rather than being suddenly cut off, with the risk of creating disruption in world prices?

Mr. Godber: The position about the International Sugar Agreement was spelt out in the UNCTAD discussions in Santiago last year. My noble Friend Lady Tweedsmuir, representing the British Government, supported and welcomed the statement made then. I believe that the position is well understood. The Australian quota has been discussed in the past. Our understanding with the Australian Government about this was made known by my right hon. and learned Friend at the time, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said about the International Sugar Agreement is not good enough? Will he think about this again? Does he not agree that the International Sugar Agreement is of immense relevance to the future prosperity of Commonwealth sugar growers? If we are not able to continue as a member of that agreement and if the Community, which has swallowed up the independent British commercial existence, is not a member either, how can we make any representations to defend Commonwealth sugar producers from within that International Sugar Agreement, as we should? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and make a full and proper statement on it before the Easter Recess?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. The position of Commonwealth sugar producers is covered by protocol 22. The right hon. Gentleman is now talking about the International Sugar Agreement and

the arrangements that will be made for membership. I have said that as members of the Community we shall be playing a full part in seeking to ensure membership of the International Sugar Agreement. This is how we shall play our part in these matters. We are involved with European sugar production as members of the Community and it is right that we should exercise our influence in that way.

Beef Herd

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rate of expansion of the national beef herd in recent years; and what is its rate of growth at the latest available date.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In the five years up to and including 1971 the beef breeding herd expanded at an annual average of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. In the year ending December last an increase of 10 per cent. was recorded, and the number of beef heifers in calf for the first time increased by 60 per cent.

Mr. Farr: May I congratulate my hon. Friend upon those remarkable figures? Will he confirm that it is fair to say that if this level of expansion had been reached by the previous Government more home beef would have been available for slaughter now, with the result that beef prices would be lower?

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Burden: That is all very well, but is my hon. Friend aware that it is not very satisfactory to know that the extra beef that is being produced is being sent abroad for slaughter, on the hoof, in conditions which are intolerable to the people of this country? Does he not agree that it would be better to retain these animals here instead of having to replace them by imports?

Mr. Stodart: The amount going out is so minimal that it would make no difference and would put us in the greatest difficulty in getting supplies elsewhere, because others would have taken our place.

Works Canteen Meals

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether


he will establish an inquiry into increases in the price of meals in works canteens since 1st April 1973.

Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend sees no justification for such an inquiry.

Mr. Golding: Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture told us that there was no tax on food. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the alarming increases which have taken place in the price of canteen dinners throughout the country despite the claimed reductions in the price of old potatoes, carrots, onions and cabbages? Will she say what she intends to do about this? If she will do nothing herself, will she ask employers to accept the burden of this new tax as it affects workers' dinners?

Mrs. Fenner: As the hon. Member knows, VAT is chargeable on food served for consumption on the premises.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is a tax on food.

Mrs. Fenner: Such food was already subject to selective employment tax. During the prices standstill restaurants and canteens are allowed to increase prices to recover the additional cost of raw materials. My prices unit has been investigating a number of complaints about canteens received before 1st April. We have not found that the managers of canteens have been in breach of the terms of the standstill. It is a bit too soon to assess the complaints that have arisen since 1st April.

Mr. Tom King: As most works canteens are subsidised by the employers, will my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the terms of phase 2 to prevent union negotiators from negotiating more favourable subsidies for their members?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is possible.

Mr. Buchan: What the Minister has demonstrated is that the freeze applies successfully to wages and everything else except workers' costs. Does she not agree that since the freeze of workers' wages started the annual rate of increase in the cost of food has been about 23·4 per cent.—double that of 12 months ago?

Can she tell us of any period in recorded history when food prices were rising so alarmingly?

Mrs. Fenner: The Question referred to VAT on food served for consumption in works canteens. VAT was imposed from 1st April, and as from 1st April wages may be increased within the limits laid down in the stage 2 arrangements.

HOUNSLOW

Ql. Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Hounslow.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: When the Prime Minister decides to visit Hounslow, where London Airport is situated, will he make a point of not going to that hotel which used his likeness without authority for the purpose of a cheap advertising gimmick, unless and until he receives a wholehearted apology from the smart-alec advertisers who were guilty of this intrusion?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. I have received unqualified apologies from the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Times Newspapers, the advertising agents, and their clients. I have accepted these, and I do not propose to take the matter further.

Mr. Dan Jones: When is the Prime Minister likely to redeem his promise to visit Burnley and North-East Lancashire—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question refers to a visit to Hounslow.

The Prime Minister: I am unlikely to go via Hounslow.

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (EDUCATION)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer ministerial responsibility for the education of handicapped children to himself.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to transfer to myself responsibilities at


present allocated to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends.

Mr. Morris: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is being strongly attacked for dishonesty, this time from within his own party, on the question of handicapped children? Does he agree with the charge now being made by Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism that he has acted dishonestly over his pledge to institute an inquiry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That kind of word is not desirable.

Mr. Morris: I am referring to a report from Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism which says that the Prime Minister is acting dishonestly over his pledge to institute an inquiry into the education of 95,000 mentally and physically handicapped children. Is the Prime Minister aware that Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism has called these children "the outsiders" and attacked the Government for their appalling lack of concern? Will he say what the Government have done to improve the educational opportunities for autistic and dyslexic children, and children who are both deaf and blind?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate what PEST has said. What I said in my original letter was that if the Labour Government had not instituted inquiries into these matters by the time we came to office we would do so. That was in 1968. After that, the Labour Party instituted the Vernon inquiry into the visually handicapped and the Quirk inquiry into the speech therapy services, and the advisory committee on handicapped children generally was reconstituted. We agreed with all that. The Secretary of State's general advisory committee now deals with the whole question of handicapped children. No one underestimates the problems that still remain to be dealt with, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not help his case by his approach.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has made remarkable advances in the treatment of the mentally handicapped, for which all those who are involved in this matter are indeed grateful?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is certainly the case. But I think we would all agree that there are still many problems, and that several thousands of children are waiting to receive special educational facilities. Our task must now be to meet this need as quickly as possible.

Mr. Edward Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Labour Government's inquiries to which he referred were small, specific inquiries into a very small number in each case, and that in his letter to Mr. Stanley Segal—it is my recollection that it was written in 1970 and not 1968, but we can check that—the Prime Minister promised a general inquiry into the whole question of handicapped children? The right hon. Gentleman has not kept that promise. When will he keep it?

The Prime Minister: In fact, I wrote the letter on 22nd July 1968 and the Labour Government's actions were taken after that. As I said, there is the standing advisory committee to deal with the whole subject. I said in my letter:
Whether a Plowden type inquiry, that is to say, a remit to the Central Advisory Council on Education, is the most suitable form or not is a matter which would need careful consideration when we see the conditions on our return to power.
The particular inquiries have been carried out. I believe that those who are concerned with these matters take the view, on the whole, that there can be no overall general approach to the particular problems of disabled children and their education. The special detailed inquiries dealt with particular aspects, and the general standing advisory committee deals with general aspects.

BRUSSELS

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Brussels.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister not reconsider that decision? Is he aware that the Commission in Brussels has already stated in print to the Council of Ministers that it will propose an 8 percent. increase in beef prices for the years 1974 and 1975? Even if the Prime


Minister's Government did not have the courage to veto the present price increases, will he assure the House that his Government will veto those proposals? In view of the way in which the Prime Minister has misled the British housewife, is he really surprised that our housewives simply do not love him any more?

The Prime Minister: The Commission and the Council of Ministers of Agriculture are dealing with the present year's increases. That is what is being discussed in Brussels at the moment. I know nothing of proposals beyond those which have been put forward by the Commission at the moment.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present representatives of this Government in Brussels have done a great deal to ease the terms of the common agricultural policy? Is he not aware also that when the Leader of the Opposition was negotiating to go into the Common Market he said that that policy was one which had to be accepted and that it was not negotiable?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite correct. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just returned from the most recent round of discussions about the pricing policy for the CAP. One of the items which the Commission has put forward deals with proposals to reduce the intervention prices for butter and therefore to prevent a similar situation arising to the one which it has just disposed of.

Mr. Peter Shore: Whether or not the Prime Minister goes to Brussels, will he at least make sure that his Government do not agree to any general price increases this year under the CAP and that in future British representatives on management committees know how to vote and know how to use their vote in the interests of the British people?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made our position clear in the present discussions. As for the right hon. Gentleman's last point, we had absolutely nothing to do with the accumulation of the butter. That occurred before we became a member of the EEC. Therefore, it was right that

we should not take part in the voting in the committee. But as regards future prices, my right hon. Friend has been dealing with exactly that problem.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman goes to Brussels, if we have no responsibility and if the reason for our abstention was that the butter was accumulated before 1st January, will the Prime Minister explain why we have to pay for it?

The Prime Minister: We shall have to pay only a very small part, precisely because of the good terms negotiated by this Government in Brussels.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman considers £12 million such a small amount, does he realise that he withdrew all school milk for a much smaller figure?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday, it is not yet possible to calculate the precise amount. But as we are limited to just over 8 per cent., it is a small proportion of the total amount.

CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at Nottingham University on 27th March.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Federation of Conservative Students' Conference in Nottingham on 27th March on the environment and growth.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made at Nottingham University on 27th March about economic growth.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 29th March, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Does the Prime Minister recall that during that speech he spoke of "sound and steady growth" when in reality there has been real and crippling growth in food prices, rents, mortgages


and rates? Does he recall that he also said:
Britain is littered with factories and plant"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to make a quotation in a supplementary question.

Mr. Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the appalling conditions of 19th century factories in which British workers had to work. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that much of what has been done in the past 50 years to improve conditions of work for ordinary people in factories and plants has been due to the British trade union movement?

The Prime Minister: Most of it has been done by Government legislation, obviously in conjunction with the TUC. I am the first to acknowledge that. Some of it was prepared when I was at the Ministry of Labour, and it was done in the closest collaboration with the TUC.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to that part of my right hon. Friend's speech which concerned industrial relations. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have spoken about what is properly referred to as "worker participation". Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal could be done towards increasing industrial democracy if the trade unions themselves were willing to open up their councils and meetings to company managers and executives, so that this might be a two-way effort?

The Prime Minister: I hope that there will be developments in the direction of greater participation by union representatives in all these discussions. If the discussions are carried on together, it becomes a two-way matter, and that is probably the best way of doing it.

Mr. Concannon: When the Prime Minister visited Nottingham why were so many false trails laid and why was the right hon. Gentleman so shy about meeting the people of Nottingham?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I was here in the House until quite late that evening. I

went straight to Nottingham and made my speech, which was a party occasion.

PUBLIC OFFICES (GUIDANCE NOTES)

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of his answer to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West on Tuesday 27th March 1973, he will now seek to arrange to apply his guidance notes now applicable to Ministers in Her Majesty's Government to all persons engaged in public life, including Members of Parliament and, in particular, members of planning authorities.

The Prime Minister: These matters are kept under review but I have nothing to add at present to what the House has previously been told by my right hon. Friends the Lord President and the Minister for Local Government and Development. Any proposals which the Government may make for changes in the rules for particular classes of people in public life will take account of the different circumstances in each case.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he accept that, especially in recent months, we have witnessed growing concern about the opportunities for graft and corruption among people in all aspects of public life, including even Members of Parliament—I do not exonerate us—but specifically in planning authorities, where local authority members are major shareholders in or directors of land and housing development companies? Will the Prime Minister re-examine this matter, so that we may rid from the public mind any suspicion about graft and corruption in public life?

The Prime Minister: I have been considering this question very carefully. It is not a matter of reconsidering it. It is kept continuously under review. I have answered a Question and set out clearly the position with regard to Ministers. As for hon. Members, this is a matter which has been engaging the attention of both sides of the House, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been involved in the discussions. On the much wider questions which the hon. Gentleman raises, he


knows that at the moment inquiries are being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions into some allegations which have naturally caused anxiety in the country. I think that it would be appropriate to await the outcome of those inquiries before taking further action. I told the House in the original circumstances that I did not exclude the possibility of a further inquiry should the need be shown after the DPP's inquiries have been made.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland about recent appointments to property development and land speculation companies of people who were previously engaged by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Will he consider the application to such people of the rules that apply to senior civil servants taking jobs within two years of retirement from the service?

The Prime Minister: This matter is under consideration. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the relationship of public and independent bodies, such as the nationalised industries and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, is different from that of the Civil Service to the Government or of Ministers or, indeed, of this House. However, it is a matter to which I am giving consideration.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I so rarely trespass upon the Prime Minister's attention, I wonder whether you could prevail upon him to answer Question No. 12 today?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is "No." It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I wonder whether you could guide the House by indicating what could be done to ensure that the Prime Minister comes adequately briefed to answer Questions on the Common Market? I have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of answers is not a matter for me. Whatever complaint the hon. Gentleman may have, whether it is justified or not, is nothing to do with me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: While congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that the content of answers is not a matter for you, may I, by Private Notice, put a question to the Leader of the House— namely, whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH APRIL—The House will be asked to deal with the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill.
TUESDAY, 17TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Recreation and Youth Service, Oaths and Declarations and Superannuation.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH APRIL—Consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation.
Remaining stages of the Overseas Pensions Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Orders, the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order and the Horticulture (Increase in Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order.
THURSDAY, 19TH APRIL—It will be proposed that the House meets at 11 a.m., takes Questions until 12 noon, and adjourns at 5 p.m. until Monday, 30th April.

Mr. Wilson: I do not think I heard the right hon. Gentleman give us the date for the motion for the Easter Adjournment which in the past we have usually been given. He knows our anxiety because of certain recent events. When does he expect or hope to have the debate on the Adjournment motion?
Secondly, may I ask whether he recalls what he said a week ago about Motion No. 243, in the names of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and others?
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities


(No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]
Last week he said that he hoped to have the debate in the week before Easter. I agree that there was no firm commitment. Will he tell us what are the prospects of its being debated, whether it can be squeezed in next week, or whether he expects to have the debate soon after Easter?
Thirdly, may I ask when there will be a debate on the recent Select Committee report on steel?
Finally, in view of the references by the Prime Minister this afternoon to the responsibility of the Leader of the House concerning discussions of Members' interests and related questions, may I ask how he sees them going and when he expects to be able to make a statement? Is he aware, for example, of proposals which have been worked out on this side of the House as regards both Members' interests and related questions and the proposal which has been widely canvassed that any such register should apply to those who report our proceedings?

Mr. Prior: On the last point, I am not aware of the views of the Opposition at the moment, but I am expecting to have further consultations in due course.
Regarding a debate on steel following the Select Committee's report, I think that it would be better to await the Government's reply before having a debate on that matter.
On the problem of Motion No. 243 and the time to debate it, it is true that it will be some months at least before any decision is taken on the issue. Since last Thursday it has become clear, because of the time to be taken on Northern Ireland affairs, that a choice would have to be made among those issues which the House was hoping to discuss. It seemed to me that the Select Committee's Report had the strongest claim.
It is not usual to announce on the business for the coming week on what day we shall have the Adjournment motion debate. However, it is not my intention that it should be on the last day.

Mr. Wilson: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further regarding

Motion No. 243 as he seems to have changed his position on it? Last week we all understood, when he said he hoped that it would be before Easter, that he would try to fit it in, although he made the point, perfectly fairly, that we had not adequate translations. That seemed to be the reason for leaving it until next week. Now he is saying that because of Northern Ireland and other matters, which presumably he knew about last Thursday, it may be deferred for some months. Does he recognise that we are not pressing him to have a debate before Easter, but that we shall certainly press him if he has totally changed his mind compared with what he said last week?

Mr. Prior: This issue will need to be debated. My right hon. Friend hopes to make his comments on these proposals very soon. I think that it would be helpful to the House to hear his comments before having the debate.

Sir F. Bennett: On 20th March, in response to a Question by myself about when we could expect the review of the law on picketing to be announced, the Under-Secretary of State said that his right hon. Friend
very much hopes to make a statement in the next two weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 228.]
Rather over three weeks have now expired. If we do not get a statement next week it will be at least six weeks, which is three times the figure that I was given. May I ask the Leader of the House to give me some indication when this fond hope will be realised?

Mr. Prior: I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that he is hoping to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Harold Walker: May I press the Leader of the House yet again about an early debate on the Robens Report. It is now nine months since that committee reported on the important question of industrial health and safety, since when the Government have been silent. May we have some indication of an early debate on that matter?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement within the next few weeks outlining the Government's intentions. I think that it would be better to


have that statement before having a debate. I understand that the House will want to debate the matter in this Session.

Mr. Burden: May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 13 which calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the present export of animals for slaughter is replaced by a carcase-only trade?
[That this House, realising the suffering that can be inflicted upon cattle, sheep and other animals exported alive for slaughter overseas, and in view of the fact that experience has shown the impossibility of enforcing the safeguards implicit in the Balfour Assurances, even in countries that have undertaken to observe them, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the present export of such live animals is replaced by a carcase-only trade, thus ensuring that they will be slaughtered under the humane conditions prevailing in British abattoirs, and that benefits accrue to the British economy from the processing of the animal by-products.]
May I remind my right hon. Friend that no fewer than 163 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed that motion and that in all 270 right hon. and hon. Members of this honourable House have signed that and comparable motions? May I ask whether he will give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced and that, if not, time will be found for a debate in the near future?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give any indication that time can be found either for legislation or for a debate on this subject. I recognise its importance. I believe that the export of meat in carcase form is greatly to be desired, and I think that this will better be accomplished by voluntary means than by taking legislative action.

Mr. C. Pannell: Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago the Minister for Housing and Construction gave the House a full statement upon what I call the logistics of the new parliamentary building? Have the Government crystallised their minds on that

point? May we expect an early debate? I had expected that we would have one before Easter.

Mr. Prior: I, too, had hoped that we would have an early debate on this matter, but not all the material could be made available to the House in time for a debate next week. I will keep in mind the desirability of the House reaching an early decision, but to enable it to do so I think that it is important for the House to have all the evidence available to it.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be kind enough next week to let the House know—he has already let me know and has probably told some other Members, too—how long it will be before he is able to announce a decision on the Kielder Reservoir project? The Secretary of State for the Environment told me that the decision would be announced within a very short time, and though he would not set a time he said that it might be as quick as a month. Since the whole of the North of England is urgently awaiting this decision, it would be helpful—and, if he takes the right decision, would enable many people to have a happy Easter—if he would make the statement next week so that we shall all know where we are.

Mr. Prior: I came fully prepared to answer a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) might raise on the Booz-Allen Report but not a question about the Kielder Reservoir. I will convey my hon. Friend's views to the Secretary of State for the Environment and will see whether he can make a statement next week.

Mr. Loughlin: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Motion No. 252 on the rating system. This system is placing an enormous burden on all sections of the community, particularly in rural areas where properties are being revalued on the basis of prices which can he got for them in the commuter market and from the point of view of people having two homes. Could he arrange for a debate on the whole rating system?
[That this House, conscious of the need for a complete reorganisation of the rating system, regrets that Her Majesty's Government persists in its policy of rating


revaluation; recognises that such a revaluation will inevitably increase the burden on domestic ratepayers, who at the same time are faced with rate demands based upon a fictitious ' notional rent' arrived at on the basis of an individual person's judgment and which can bear no relation to the value of the property; rejects the concept that domestic ratepayers shall be called upon to pay such rates without being informed of the individual factors upon which the rateable value of the properties are fixed; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to arrange for each domestic ratepayer to be provided with a breakdown of all factors included in the ' notional rent' and on which the rates of the domestic property is based.]

Mr. Prior: There have been several opportunities recently to debate this matter, and I cannot promise further time. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 28th March.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could my right hon. Friend give any idea when the House will debate the code for the guidance of the Pay Board and the Price Commission? I understand that the matter is subject to the affirmative procedure, and since these two bodies are now in business, is it not a matter of some urgency that we should debate the guidance which they have been given to assist them in their endeavours?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is correct. They are subject to the affirmative resolution and have to be brought before the House within a certain period—and they will be brought before the House. But the answer is, not next week.

Mr. Buchan: The question that was raised earlier relating to the export of live animals, on which many people feel deeply, also raises a more general question. I refer to the absolute necessity to have an early debate on agriculture. It is now a month since the annual price review, and we are seeing the process of the unscrambling of present agricultural procedures late at night when the Government are laying order after order. When will the Government give time for the House to discuss the whole subject of agriculture?

Mr. Prior: I certainly would welcome a debate on agricultural policy, but the Opposition seem to have shown a great reluctance to have a debate on this subject in their own time.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Paymaster-General that he should ask me to let him have a copy of my scheme for the introduction of a public lending right, which is long overdue? My scheme is practicable and it could be introduced without undue delay.

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Member has not already given the Paymaster-General a copy of his scheme and if the hon. Member will let me have a copy of it, I will see that the Paymaster-General receives it.

Mr. Marten: May I take up again the question of Motion No. 243 on the raising of the age for a driving licence? Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition he said that the matter was being delayed because of translation and documentary difficulties? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have with me the original French draft directive, that it has been more than adequately translated into English by the Department of the Environment and that the running off of enough copies could be done within 24 hours? May we have an assurance that we shall debate this important matter the week after we return from the Easter Recess?

Mr. Prior: There is, of course, now an unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the Opposition in seeking to have this debate. [Interruption.] No, I have not an unholy alliance with anybody on this subject. The translation has been prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Translation Section and it is available in the Vote Office, so there is now no problem about it from that point of view.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is that not an extraordinary way of putting the matter? Whether it is an holy alliance, a concept of Europe, or whatever it may be, these are matters which affect the laws of this country and it is right that the House should have them. There is no alliance, the right hon. Gentleman has seen the motion on the Order Paper, and it is


widely desired that the motion should be debated. Last week we all thought, because of the warm way in which the Leader of the House spoke about his hopes, that we would be debating the matter within a short time of the translation of the documents. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his words?

Mr. Prior: I do not think I need reconsider the words I have used. I cannot find time at the moment for a debate on the subject. We can reconsider the matter after the recess.

Mr. Kelley: Will the leader of the House try to find time to discuss Motion No. 266 regarding the conduct of the National Coal Board and its commercial relations with outside bodies, since the board has announced that it intends to conduct a private inquiry—which, in the eyes of the public is tantamount to a whitewash operation allowing the board to examine its own navel at its leisure.
[That this House would welcome any investigation which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries may care to make into the commercial dealings of the National Coal Board with outside bodies.]

Mr. Prior: We must leave it to the Select Committee to decide whether it wishes to investigate the matters raised in the hon. Member's motion. There have already been several inquiries, and my hon. Friend announced on 26th February that the board has decided to conduct a general reveiew by independent experts of purchasing procedures.

Mr. Body: Although I, too, run the risk of being alleged to be party to an unholy alliance, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that when the Conservative Party were in opposition we often had debates on agriculture because we regard it as an important subject and industry? If the Opposition will not allow one of their Supply Days to be used for the purpose, could we not have a de bate on this subject in Government time? Will my right hon. Friend say whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the future of farm prices before the new prices come into effect on 1st May?

Mr. Prior: There was an opportunity only a week before last to debate agriculture. In reply to my hon. Friend's point

about what the Conservatives did in opposition, I must tell him that we had debates on agricultural subjects because we, as the then Opposition, made time for them. I should welcome it if the Opposition did the same for us now.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that it is the Government's duty to provide time for the House to debate the Government's agricultural policy?

Mr. Prior: The Government's policy on agriculture is well know, and if hon. Gentlemen do not like it they should table a motion and debate it. We would welcome it.

Mr. William Hamilton: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the Franks Committee Report? The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance some time ago that he would look at what the Prime Minister said on this matter in answer to a question which I tabled some months ago when he indicated that a debate would take place in this House before the Government came to a decision on the matter. Will he give an assurance that such a debate will take place before the Government announce their policy?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We recognise the desire for a debate, and I hope that it will not be too long delayed.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by the good sense of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government's intention to deny tax relief to contributors to the new State Reserve Pension Scheme, alone among all pensions, has been turned down upstairs? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement next week on whether the Government will accept that position, or will they try to dragoon their members into the lobbies and restore the disgraceful proposal which they originally put forward?

Mr. Prior: I will convey those views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago about the steel industry and steel prices, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that any decision or


understanding on the part of the Government about raising steel prices will be announced in a statement to the House, so that questions on the matter may be put to the Government?
Secondly, on the question of a debate about agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that the circumstances of the House of Commons today are different from those of any time in its modern history, in the sense that decisions about food prices in Britain are made elsewhere and that time has to be provided by the Opposition, apparently, to deal with this subject? That is why we had a debate on this subject on Tuesday, 3rd April. No doubt we could have had a debate on agriculture generally if we had not had to deal with the immediate subject. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account that he has not sought to accommodate the House yet, even in accepting and approving the unanimous recommendations of a Select Committee as to how the House of Commons might be given proper opportunities to discuss these matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman cease making taunts to the Opposition about providing time, as we have been trying to remedy the situation created by the Government?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept that, because the hon. Gentleman knows only too well that we could have made much more progress over dealing with European legislation if he had not baulked the setting up of a committee last year.
Steel prices are matters for the British Steel Corporation which, I understand, will be making an announcement shortly.
Regarding a debate on agriculture and food prices, I do not believe that one can separate the one from the other. That was why we had the debate last week.

Mr. Foot: On the question of steel prices, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, on a matter of such importance affecting the whole British economy and the whole counter-inflation question— as steel prices might affect it—no statement is to be made to the House on this subject and that no Minister will be able to be questioned on it?
On the question of the European Communities Act, will the right hon. Gentle-

man further take into account that if the amendments tabled by the Opposition had been accepted, these increases in food prices could have been carried through only on an affirmative resolution? We would have protected the House of Commons. That is why we have to have debates by these other methods.

Mr. Prior: Neither of those two points is connected in any way with the business of the House—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Foot rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming an argument.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not perfectly within the normal arrangements and custom of this House that hon. Members of the Opposition should be allowed to put questions about statements to be made in the House during the following week? My question was to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would arrange for a statement to be made next week about steel prices. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that that was an improper question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was the kind of question which has been constantly put by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did nothing of the sort. I was concerned about what was following on. I have allowed three questions from the Opposition Front Bench today.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

4.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I think the House should know that I shall make two speeches today. This afternoon it is my intention to try to deal with the fundamental problems of the RAF in relation to its present and future armament and role. Later tonight I will try to deal with other points which have been raised in the debate, including what might be described as the peripheral activities of the RAF.
I would like to inform the House now that I propose to deal then at some length with the problem of low flying which I know has concerned the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Robert Hicks), in whose constituency recently there was, unfortunately, an air crash. I hope this will prove satisfactory to the House.
Nearly three years ago when I took over my present position the Secretary of State said that his chief worry was that a comparatively small part of the money spent annually on the Royal Air Force was directed towards strengthening the front line. He thought the task which the Service should set itself was to increase front-line expenditure within the framework of the Air Force budget by finding economies elsewhere. He hoped that this could be done without further damaging the fabric of Service confidence which had received such damaging shocks over the period of the previous decade. Therefore the task we set ourselves was to increase the strength of the front line without reducing Service confidence.
This was not easy, for reasons that I think I can best explain by a short historical digression. It is I think no exaggeration to say that defence history since the war has been divided into three eras: 1945 to 1957, 1957 to 1967, and from 1967 until today, when we have been living in a period in which flexible response has governed our action.
In the first of these eras we continued to maintain a large conventional Air Force and, broadly speaking, were prepared and able to meet any emergency within the orbit of our then world role. This was, of course, also a period of intense world-wide nuclear development. America remained the dominant nuclear power and made it understood that it would in certain circumstances assert its nuclear superiority. These developments were concurrent with a period of rising costs and, towards the end of the period, decreasing responsibilities for the United Kingdom. It was obvious and necessary, therefore, that there should be a search for economies and for a new role, and the result was the White Paper of 1957 envisaging total war or total peace.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of that conception its effects on the Royal Air Force were considerable. It resulted in concentration on the maintenance of a credible V-bomber nuclear deterrent, and led to the reduction of the RAF's conventional capability.
Therefore, when in 1967 hon. Members accepted the policy of flexible response in place of the "trip-wire" philosophy, it is no secret that the Air Force was short of types of aircraft other than those which had been necessary in its previous role. Yet the Service still maintained much of the framework of a large conventional force and we retained bases in various parts of the world. However, during the last three years of the Labour Government the announcement was made of withdrawal from the Middle and Far East. These planned withdrawals created a political situation which, on our return to office, made it seem unwise for us to reverse decisions which we would not ourselves have made.
This being the case, I found when we took office in 1970 that the Air Force, although it would soon be mainly stationed in the United Kingdom and Europe, still retained much of its old

managerial structure which was backing a front-line strength disproportionate to its frame.
It was against this background that we set out to increase our numerical aircraft strength, largely financed by internal managerial economies.
As I told the House last year, the main elements of Strike Command, which was formed in 1968, and Air Support Command have amalgamated to form a single RAF Command for all United Kingdom based operational forces. This increased efficiency and saved manpower. The new command, still called Strike Command, was formed at High Wycombe last year.
We have also made changes overseas. The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Near East Air Force now exercises full command of RAF Gibraltar and RAF Gan, and has assumed administrative and engineering responsibility for RAF units in Singapore and Hong Kong. As a result, RAF operational forces are now in three commands only—Strike Command, RAF Germany and the Near East Air Force.
We have also been very carefully considering the support services in the United Kingdom. When the present review has been completed we should be able to bring closer together the supply and engineering functions of the Service and to streamline and centralise other support functions of the RAF, thereby easing the load on the commands. I should like to say something further about this later in the year when I shall know more and will be able to say more.
The House will remember that other measures to streamline training were announced last year, when we said that the RAF College at Cranwell was to become a post-graduate training centre. It will accommodate the College of Air Warfare, currently at RAF Manby. The School of Refresher Flying at Manby will be disbanded and its tasks moved to other RAF stations. Manby will thus cease to have a flying task.
We are also planning to rationalise, and to economise in, some of the other ground training tasks, and, by relocating tasks, we aim to close a number of further stations. We have already closed RAF Strubby, and Debden and Upwood are also to be closed.
A new pattern of flying training aims to produce economies without decreasing efficiency or safety. As part of this new pattern, Jetstream and Bulldog aircraft will replace the Varsities in the advanced flying training role and Chipmunks of the University Air Squadrons respectively. The first Bulldog has already been delivered and the first Jetstream will enter service this year. As announced in this year's White Paper, a project definition study of the conversion of the Argosy for training aircrew other than pilots is in hand and I hope to be able to announce something about this also later this year. Lynx and Gazelle helicopters and the HS 1182 are planned to complete the catalogue of new training aircraft for RAF use.
I should like to assure right hon. and hon. Members that in addition to these organisational changes a radical—and I repeat "radical"—review of all RAF establishments and practices is under way. Already, some 6,000 RAF posts are being saved and further savings will result from studies now in various stages of completion.
The results of these efforts—aimed, as I said earlier, at reforming the structure of the Royal Air Force and the manning position, both of which had in places remained almost unchanged since 1948 —should be to save more than £80 million in personnel costs by 1980. This sum contributes considerably to the money available for improvements to the front line. Indeed, these are net financial savings, after making allowances for the costs of the extra posts required to support the additional aircraft which will be in RAF service in the next ten years.

Mr. Brynmor John: Do I understand from what the Minister is saying that this review is a rolling review which will carry on in every year up to 1980? If not, when does he expect its results to be announced?

Lord Lambton: I thought that I was announcing the results of the review now. The results are that the savings will be more than £80 million in personnel costs by 1980. What we are having is a continuous review of all tasks. I imagine that, from time to time, further announcements will be made. What I have been announcing today is the first stage of this.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: When these RAF stations are closed, will they remain the property of the Ministry of Defence or will they be returned to civilian use?

Lord Lambton: This is a question that it is not always exactly easy to answer without prior notice. The hon. Member will know that it is essential that there should be certain areas which are in reserve in case at any time the RAF has to expand. Therefore, if my hon. Friend would like to ask further into this, I will let him know separately the answer to each question.
I should like to make it clear that this is not just an exercise in pruning posts and cutting down. It is part of a serious attempt to improve the forward planning of manpower requirements— which I think was the point of the hon Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).
The intention is for the RAF to use its resources better and I am glad to say the changes have been well received by the Service, who see the recreation of a more powerful Air Force in which waste and overlapping is being largely eliminated.
However, these savings in posts have made it wise to look closely at the current manpower structure as well. Nothing would be sillier than if the end result was a more expensive overbearing of officers or men, or ill-considered cuts. Of course, imbalances of skills or in age groups must also be avoided if there are to be no promotion blockages. So adjustments have to be made.
This is being done in part by reducing the intake of recruits to the ground trades and we are recruiting only 6,500 new personnel this year. But limitation of recruiting of course is not enough. Although this might get the overall numbers right, it would make the manpower structure unbalanced. There would be misemployment—some officers and airmen would be in jobs not matching either their experience or their ability— and promotion would be upset and slowed down. All this would have precisely the wrong effect on morale.
Therefore, in addition to limitation of entrance, we have to keep the manpower structure in balance, mainly by imposing tighter control or re-engagements and


extensions of service. This has been successful, but a minimum of redundancy has also proved necessary.
Redundancy is a measure which no one who has had anything to do with the Service wishes to apply and I have tried to see that, as far as possible, the necessary redundancies were secured voluntarily, without any element of compulsion, and on what I hope are considered reasonable financial terms. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that it will be possible to carry out the officer redundancy scheme, which I announced last year, without recourse to compulsion at all. The number of officers who wished to accept the terms offered corresponded very closely to the number—about 500—which we sought to reach. Of those selected for redundancy, the majority will leave the Service in the present financial year but a few will not leave until 1974 or 1975.
An airman redundancy scheme has also been introduced. The scheme applies only to specific trades within which some 900 volunteers, or about 1 per cent. of trained strength, will leave the Service over the next 18 months. The success of this scheme I would like to stress does not reflect a lack of enthusiasm for a Service career. Many of those who have volunteered are NCOs nearing the end of pensionable service, to whom the terms of the scheme are attractive.
I spoke earlier of a temporary reduction in recruiting, but, by the end of this year, things will be in balance again and it will be necessary to start increasing the intake to a more normal level of about 10,000 recruits a year. We are hopeful that we will manage this. Today, recruiting is satisfactory and we have in fact had to turn away a large number of young men. But I will not pretend that there are not minor problems. At the moment we are not recruiting all the fighter control officers we need. Moreover, the basis for the expended recruiting programme must be established now.
Up to now it has been the practice to recruit a proportion of airmen through apprentice training schemes, but, with the raising of the school leaving age, this obviously becomes more difficult. Also, apprentices are obviously more expensive to train than adults, and a recent review established that the requirements of the

RAF would be best met by ending apprentice schemes, other than a modified technician apprenticeship, in favour of direct entry adult training schemes. Training times would be cut from three years for an apprentice to about one year for an adult. This would introduce flexibility as well as producing substantial financial savings, probably in excess of £2 million a year in later years. First entries under the new technician scheme will begin this autumn.
I think it would be quite wrong if I did not say a word here about the human element. Today, a whole legion of jobs within the Service require great skill and technical knowledge. I never cease to be amazed at the efficient way in which the Service responds to the never-ending technological discoveries that are made and solving the consequent problems that arise. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that it would be quite wrong for the Service not to look after men of such outstanding ability in a manner which makes them realise that they are appreciated.
I am convinced that the background provided by the Service to their lives must take into account the new type of Service man. It is therefore, I believe, essential that living conditions should be of a high standard.
There were, three years ago, far too many stations where primitive dormitory living conditions had hardly altered since 1939. This was unacceptable, and during the last two years we have launched modernisation schemes creating roomlets and cubicles which, while not ideal, are a great improvement on the past. We have now completed the conversion of approximately 2,320 roomlets and a further 660 will be completed in the next twelve months.
This is slightly fewer than I announced last year, because the interim scheme has been overtaken by a longer-term programme of permanent conversion to barrack flats. The first barrack block in the long-term programme will be converted to the permanent flat concept by the autumn. All future new building will be to these improved standards.
Let me now turn to the other side of the coin—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves personnel could I ask a factual question? Does 


what he said mean the end of the starred mechanics scheme for the training of fitters, which was introduced by my right hon. Friends?

Lord Lambton: Perhaps I could look into that matter and let the hon. Member know. I do not have the answer in front of me.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend announced some profound changes—the virtual abolition by this Government of the Trenchardian System in the Air Force. What is the future of RAF Halton to be? Will it continue for the training for one year of technicians, or will the station itself be closed?

Lord Lambton: Halton will be continuing, and I shall be glad to say something about it this evening.
I wish now to turn to the other side of the coin, the improved operational capability which has in part resulted from these economies.
Over the last three years, the re-equipment of the front line with Phantoms, Buccaneers, Nimrods, Harriers and Pumas has gone steadily ahead. In the last twelve months the build-up of the initial Nimrod force and of the Puma squadrons has been completed; further Buccaneers have been deployed in Germany; in the Far East, Wessex helicopters have replaced Whirlwinds.
Our Harrier force has also now reached its full planned strength. This remarkable aircraft has an important role, and its capability is being increased by progressive re-equipment with more powerful marks of the Pegasus engine. My right hon. and noble Friend has already announced in another place that we intend to acquire additional Harriers in order to maintain the strength of the front line further into the 1980s.
Some hon. Members will recall that the Harrier came in for some curiously strong Press criticism last autumn. This may be a suitable moment at which to repeat assurances given by the Secretary of State in another place. It is true that there were a number of Harrier accidents between 1969 and 1972 before this report was published, but this is no reason for alarm. There are bound to be times when

a series of accidents occurs within a few months and this is often the case when a new aircraft comes into service. In fact, the Harrier's safety record has always compared favourably with its predecessors, such as the Hunter. Notwithstanding its unique manoeuvrability, it is not a difficult aircraft for military pilots to handle. It has done well in exercises and I can only repeat that this is a plane of great capability and of distinct value to the Air Force at present.
The coming year will bring further important front line improvements. The first Jaguars will be delivered to the Operational Conversion Unit at Lossiemouth later this year and will include both single and two-seat versions. The first squadrons will form early next year. On the weapons side, the Anglo-French Martel air-to-surface missile and the Rapier low-level surface-to-air guided weapon system will start to be delivered.
We have also recently taken two decisions which will help to maintain the RAF's planned contribution to NATO. The Victor SR2 aircraft, which are currently deployed in the strategic radar reconnaissance role and are due for conversion to tankers, will now be replaced by Vulcans. These Vulcans, like the present Victors, will be declared to SACEUR.
In addition, Canberra reconnaissance aircraft, based in the Mediterranean, are to be earmarked to NATO for operations in AFSOUTH.
Looking further ahead, the RAF's fighting power will be increased by the measures we have taken to increase frontline numbers. We shall eventually have the equivalent of four more squadrons, of Jaguars than was planned before 1970. Most of these will be deployed in Germany. We also have on order additional Buccaneers and Nimrods.
All in all, within the next four years, the RAF's front line will be 10 per cent. larger than was planned by the last Government in 1970, and the RAF will need 6,000 fewer men to carry out its tasks. This is satisfactory but there is no room for complacency and there is need to continually look ahead. We have various plans for future improvements and I would like to mention one example regarding aircraft.
The modernisation of the Nimrod's communications will begin next year, a new radar is being developed and project definition studies are to start on a range of new sensors, processors and attack systems to meet the operational requirements of the future.
No review of the RAF's operational effectiveness would be complete, however, without a reference to the MRCA. Its combat roles will include strike and attack over land and sea, air defence and reconnaissance. The MRCA force will constitute about half the combat aircraft in the RAF front line in the 1980s. The development of the aircraft continues to progress satisfactorily.
Against this background, the Governments of the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy agreed in March that the project should continue and the first flight should take place early next year. We still expect the aircraft, which is, I may say, an exercise in collaboration, to be in operational service in the RAF in the late 1970s.
I would like to say a word here about collaboration. If one looks at the Soviet forces, one is struck by the great advantage they achieve from standardisation of machines and weapons which make their forces far more mobile than their NATO counterparts whose countries are variously armed.
Really effective standardisation among allies, with its benefits, can be achieved only by co-operation and collaboration and the MRCA is in this regard a welcome example which I believe our entry into Europe will give us an opportunity to expand.
I know that many hon. Members are aware that the latest types of Russian bombers have the ability to approach the British Isles at low altitude, as well as medium and high altitude, from the north-west as well as from the north and east, and I do not think this is something one should ignore.

Mr. John Morris: Is that all the noble Lord intends to tell the House about this most important MRCA project which will provide half of the planes of the RAF? Will he not tell us something further as to a date other than the late 70s? Will he not tell us something further as to the numbers now en-

visaged and also when he proposes to make the next statement to the House of Commons on the stage of development that has been reached at that point?

Lord Lambton: I will certainly obtain more detailed information as far as I am able to meet the right hon. Member's request.
Although there is no reason to believe that the likelihood of any general attack on the United Kingdom has increased, we have been carrying out a series of examinations of our existing and planned air defences to ensure their effectiveness. A number of important improvements have already been introduced, others will be introduced over the next two or three years and further improvements are under consideration.
Obviously the capability of Warsaw Pact aircraft underlines the necessity of improving our airborne early warning system. The Shackletons introduced into this role during the last twelve months have successfully shown the value of a system mounted in aircraft, which can deploy their radars well beyond our shores and at heights which significantly extend the range of our low-level radar cover. The Shackletons are expected to remain operational until about the end of the 1970s, and we are already looking into the requirement for a successor aircraft.
The effective range and endurance of our Lightnings and Phantoms has been greatly increased by co-operation with the airborne early warning force and also by in-flight refuelling. The Lightning continues to give valuable service and the arrival of the Jaguar in the strike-attack and reconnaissance roles will enable us progressively to transfer the Phantom FGR2 to the air defence role. The performance of this aircraft gives it an excellent air defence capability against attacking aircraft, including those flying at low level. It is interesting to note that Lightning and Phantom aircraft intercepted Soviet aircraft on over 100 occasions in 1972.
To improve the capability of our fighters, we are planning to introduce new and better air-to-air guided missiles. A new British homing head and fuse are being developed for the medium-range Sparrow missile. Also under way is a


project definition study of a new short-range air-to-air missile.
We are giving particularly careful thought to the air defence ground environment in the United Kingdom and a detailed study of requirements is in progress. In the meantime, a radar has been installed in the Hebrides in order to provide additional early warning and control cover to the north-west. This radar is a useful addition to the cover already provided by Linesman radars and other air defence radars located in the United Kingdom and on the Continent.
The last element of the Linesman system to be commissioned is the L1 building at West Drayton which is expected to achieve operational capability about the end of this year. The United Kingdom air defence ground environment has been designed so that it can operate, if necessary, on a decentralised basis from radar units around the country. To increase the chances of survival in the event of air attack, we intend to devolve greater responsibility for some of the control functions which under earlier plans were to have been exercised mainly from the L1 building. Improvements are also being introduced in our air defence capabilities overseas.
The Phantom FGR2 will transfer to air defence duties in Germany and Cyprus as well as in the United Kingdom. On the ground, the new low-level surface-to-air guided weapon, Rapier, will be deployed in Germany and Cyprus, with a mobile reserve in the United Kingdom. Passive defence measures are also being implemented and include the building of aircraft shelters in RAF Germany.
I am sure that the House will be interested to hear of some of the activities of the RAF in the last 12 months. The House will be pleased to know that No. 2 Squadron, against formidable opposition, swept the prizes board in "Big Click", an oddly named AFNORTH tactical air force reconnaissance competition held to test the ability of reconnaissance crews to provide accurate and timely intelligence on a variety of targets. In 1972 our Vulcans again took part in the annual bombing and navigation competition with the United States Air Force and were successful, winning four of the six trophies, showing a marked improve-

ment in bombing and navigation accuracy. This is remarkable considering the size of our Air Force compared with some of the others who were competing in the events.
There have also been three international operations of interest. Following the earthquake in Managua in December, Hercules aircraft went to Nicaragua carrying food, and medical and other supplies. A little later, Hercules aircraft were again in operation on behalf of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees in Southern Sudan following the end of the civil war there.
More recently, a detachment of four Hercules aircraft, together with supporting RAF and Army personnel, have been in Nepal assisting in distributing food to remote parts of the country following droughts. This has been an outstanding success and our Armed Forces were delighted to aid a country with which we have such close and enduring links. The operation, planned to take 60 days, was tackled with determination and skill. Within 28 days, 187 sorties had been flown and the task of dropping almost 2,000 tons had been completed. The dropping zones and forward air strips were located in very mountainous country, thereby testing to the full the flying techniques of the crews and presenting an opportunity for very valuable air training. The success of these operations creates valuable good will and the Royal Air Force has in these cases been an effective ambassador.
I have related today some very radical changes which have been made in the managerial structure of the RAF in the last three years. I can assure the House that these changes have been willingly achieved from within the Service and ideas have been put forward at all levels to try to meet problems. I think we have been particularly fortunate in the present Chief of the Air Staff, the Air Force Board, and the field commanders who have worked as one in the knowledge that it is essential to reduce manpower and increase front line strength. As I have tried to show, we have had some successes in this line due entirely to this attitude of determination to increase efficiency.
I have this afternoon tried to outline all the main points of problems facing the Royal Air Force this year and I


have tried to describe its purpose and the role I hope it will play in the future. This may have involved me in not going into some of the details hon. Members would have wished but I shall certainly do that this evening.
Some time ago the Sunday Express in its Crossbencher column, which diverts us all on Sunday, said that I had stayed with the RAF because I had no ability to go anywhere else. If that is the case I am grateful for it because it has enabled me to be with the Service at a time of considerable achievement and moment. I can reassure the House that this by no means the end of the story. The force is now in excellent condition and is continuing on the same path of increasing efficiency that makes it one of the finest fighting forces now in existence.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I think the hon. Gentleman will by now have realised that that is not the only cross which Crossbencher inflicts on us. Certainly looking round the Chamber one can see that this debate does not have the drama which perhaps attends debates nowadays on the Army, involved as it is in Northern Ireland and with those sudden and dramatic events. The truth is that whilst some of us might oppose a joint service—probably all of us do— nevertheless we must realise that the whole defence effort of the country is interdependent, and the ability of any one Service to carry out its task is heavily dependent on the excellence of the other Services involved.
Thus the performance of the duties by the Army in Northern Ireland has been greatly helped by the vigilance of the Royal Air Force and in particular by the Nimrod pilots who located and shadowed "Claudia" and were able to bring about a state of affairs where there was a great loss to terrorists of potential weapons in Northern Ireland.
The RAF has exemplified the high standard that we have come to take for granted from that skilled force. Although I thought that it was an oddly named competition—it sounded like a "clickety-click" competition—I am glad to know of our successes from the Minister and particularly that of No. 2 Squadron, which was at one time based at the same

station where the most reluctant national Service man of all time—namely myself —was stationed.
Speaking in the comparable debate to this on 2nd March 1972 my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who led for the Opposition on that occasion, made the point that he hoped that this year's White Paper would contain a detailed and forward appraisal of the role of the RAF. The necessity for the appraisal has been somewhat removed by the first part of the Minister's speech where he dealt with some of these questions. The appraisal is necessary for three reasons and they are all to do with the future equipment programme to provide for the RAF the capacity to undertake our aerial defence. The first reason is concerned with the defence budget. Despite some valiant or misplaced attempts by Conservative back-benchers, both parties are now committed to the philosophy that the total defence budget must be contained within a proportion of total Government expenditure. We know that the Royal Air Force will have the greatest pressures placed upon it because, as the Financial Times said on 27th February 1973,
Pressures will become severe on the Royal Air Force as expensive new programmes such as MRCA build-up to their peak.
When that happens, whatever Government are in power will be faced with an agonising series of decisions. First, they will have to decide whether to hold the budget to the amount that has been allocated or whether to allow escalation. In view of the fact that there have been very few new factors this year and there has been an increase in real terms of 5·6 per cent., it can be seen that the real percentage increase when the programme reaches its peak may well be substantially more. That is bound to conflict with what one Government Minister has recently described as the legitimate claims of other spending Departments.
If we are to hold to the Defence Estimates we are likely to be faced with a choice between Services and a choice between pieces of equipment. In the presence of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), I hesitate to put forward the possibility that there may be a choice of force and that a Government may have to decide between the through-deck cruiser


and the MRCA. That is the sort of decision about pieces of equipment which may be forced by a decision on total budget resources.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman must recognise, with his new responsibility for defence on the Front Bench, that that sort of choice has always faced Defence Departments throughout our history. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has said that this country is either defended or is not properly defended. I am sure that whatever Government are in office will be bound by that basic fact. I am sure that the hon Gentleman will agree with that.

Mr. John: The proper defence of Britain is a matter of legitimate concern for us all. A genuine point which seems to command at least Front Bench alliance is that whatever expenditure on defence is necessary, that expenditure must be related to the total economic climate of the country.
Programmes such as the MRCA programme will be coming to their peak at the end of the decade. I ask the Government to take a forward look so that the relationship between defence costs and the economic climate can be considered and so that priorities between pieces of equipment can be worked out. More important than that, and the second reason for taking a forward look, is the factor which the Under-Secretary of State indicated—namely, the choice between aircraft and other equipment and manpower in the Royal Air Force.
The Financial Times on 27th February, in the article to which I have referred, said that personnel are responsible for over half of the total budget of the Royal Air Force and that the increase in the cost of new aircraft and equipment is more than the rate of inflation. Therefore, unless costs are reduced in one area or in another, the expenditure limits cannot be kept without reducing the size and capability of the front line.
The size of the Royal Air Force is already being reduced to a plan. It is vital that Service men who continue to serve in the Royal Air Force should know that their future is being thought about so that they can serve to their maximum

capacity. I have also heard the suggestion in Service quarters that there may be a limit to the rate and to the point at which manpower can be run down so to enable us to buy new pieces of equipment and new aircraft. In other words, we must not run down too far the level of manpower to enable us to afford extra aircraft. That is the second reason which compels me to believe that it is important to think now and not later.
Another reason for having a forward look at Royal Air Force policy is the uncertainty which is expressed by the British aircraft industry about future production of military aircraft. The British aircraft industry wants to know whether it is to be exclusively geared to joint projects on a European basis, such as the MRCA, or whether there is still a place for exclusively British aircraft. It wants to know the Government's thinking. It wants to know whether there will be off-the-shelf purchases in future, such as the purchase of Phantoms.
The reasons which I have indicated compel consideration of our long-term plans. It is a matter of regret that the Defence Estimates statement this year does not contain a forward-looking policy. Nowhere is there set out in that document any recognition of the valid point which was made last year, that a forward-looking policy was necessary and should be adopted.
I was heartened by the first half of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. He seemed to be correcting the balance. We shall all want to study his words with care. However, the major point of RAF policy and the major point of the debate should have figured largely in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I find it incredible that he should have cursorily dismissed the MRCA. The MRCA, is described by Air Commodore Davies in a recent review of the Royal Air Force as an aircraft on which the RAF's future plans should rely upon almost exclusively. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say, "Everything is all right, chaps, and we are going ahead a bit."
I know that the Under-Secretary of State said that he will answer detailed questions when he winds up. I hope that he will pay attention to the series of questions which inevitably I must ask him. Air Commodore Davies asks


whether the MRCA will ever come into production. We have had an indication that it is nearer production than it was. His second question is whether the MRCA will perform as planned. The question whether it goes into production is very much bound up with the question of costs. Despite their baying in Opposition, the Government have not revealed to us any details of the costings of the MRCA. Certain figures have been given and development costs of £250 million were mentioned initially. Has that been exceeded? If so, what is the new development figure? Certain unverified remarks were bandied around the House about unit costs when MRCA was first considered. The unit figure at that stage was £1½ million. At paragraph 43 of the Second Report of the Expenditure Committee it is clear that at an early stage costs were exceeding estimates.
It was hoped initially that a thousand aircraft would be produced. It was thought that Britain would take roughly 350 to 400. The Germans have reduced their requirement and the total production now being talked about is in the range of 800 aircraft. What effect will that have upon unit costs? Shall we adhere to the number of aircraft which we said that we would take?
Are the Government satisfied that the apparatus for the control of the product has been adequate to protect the customers? It was said in the Sunday Times on 12th March that in the MRCA organisation bureaucracy is rife and costly. That may not be so, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us. An allied point is that, even if the organisation of the project is not costly, are the Government satisfied that the apparatus is sufficiently flexible so that decisions are taken as quickly as they should be and are taken near to the point of production, instead of endless referrals either to the country of origin or to the main offices of the companies concerned?
The second point has to do with its performance. Allied to that is the question of when it is coming into service. As I understand the Minister's statement today about it coming into operation in the late 1970s, it means that there has been some slippage from the date of 1976 when it was originally said to be coming into operation. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that in due course, with the

leave of the House, he will tell us that this is not so. In the interests of economy certain modifications have been made to the performance of the aircraft. I hope that even with those it will still give the same sort of performance as was initially envisaged and I hope, too, that its ultimate performance will be sufficient to give us a steady and stable defence capability in the future.
These matters are crucial to the whole question of the future of the Royal Air Force capability. I hope that a fuller statement will be made tonight about the MRCA than has hitherto been the case. The House has everything to gain by an assessement of the current programme at this stage. I believe—and I have to acknowledge that the Labour Party no less than the Conservative Party has been guilty of this in the past—that too little information is given to the House on defence matters on grounds of so-called secrecy. I often think that we are the only people who are in the dark. Certainly if we go to our allies we get much better briefings. Much of the information which has come to us on the MRCA and Concorde has orginiated with our allies rather than ourselves.
It is equally certain that our enemies will know a great deal about this, whether we like it or not. What is the reason for our being the only people in the dark? I hope that we shall eschew the dreary international saga of secrecy plus escalating costs which are even now bedevilling the civil aviation industry.
What is at stake is too important because all Governments—this one particularly—complain that the criticism of their defence spending is ill-informed and misguided. If that is so it is because the Government do not supply sufficient information to allow the House to make well-balanced and constructive criticisms. There is every reason why the Minister should tonight give us a full and detailed view of the MRCA.
I come now to the Harrier. I was glad that the Minister was able to dispel criticism of this, particularly the criticism which appeared in the Sunday Times dealing with the fact that there had been 14 crashes in three years. I believe that it is a fine aircraft, an outstanding technical achievement. I am glad that the criticism has been dispelled because of


the prospects of foreign sales. Is the Minister prepared to give us some indication of the foreign sales position? There are one or two other aspects of the Harrier with which I should like him to deal.
The first is the question of the Harrier simulator in RAF Germany. When the Expenditure Committee was out there the Harrier simulator had not been erected and there was some confusion as to when, if ever, it was to be erected. I hope that the Minister can give us a firm reply on this. The second matter has to do with the use of helicopters in conjunction with the Harrier service. Has a study exercise yet been undertaken? The Minister will know that the C-in-C, RAF Germany, has said that a study would be necessary and that he thought that the use of helicopters was highly desirable in conjunction with the Harrier.
The Minister will also know that at the moment logistic support is provided by lorries. This is accepted in RAF circles as being a second best. I can understand that it may be necessary for economic reasons. I hope that such a study has been undertaken or will be carried out into the use of helicopters in connection with this project so that this fine aircraft will not become a cart hitched to a buggy. This seems to be the effect of putting these two pieces of equipment in tandem.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Harrier—and both sides of the House have said what a fine aircraft it is and what enormous potential it has— will he try to get an answer from the Minister about the maritime version? I have never been able to get such an answer.

Mr. John: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all of his powers of persuasion, has failed I feel that it is beyond my powers. I have no doubt that the Minister noted the question. Statements have been made and I believe that the latest position is that the evaluation is almost complete. Therefore a decision will be taken in the near future. However this is for his hon. Friends not for me.
I come now to the question of aircraft shelters. I am a little puzzled about the slowness with which these are being introduced, particularly in RAF Germany. The Select Committee reported a considerable time ago. Its report was presented on 10th February 1972. It was said then that this project already had SACEUR approval and that it was intended to give the aircraft shelter programme the maximum priority. I had intended to ask the Minister whether this had been completed, but I gathered from what he said that it is still very much in the course of being carried out.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to announce very soon the completion of this programme because it is obvious, if we have a strategic air force in Germany, that much of its effectiveness, certainly in a limited confrontation, must depend on the protection of our aircraft on the airfields. The so-called hardening of the airfields is desperately necessary if RAF Germany is to have any value at all.
Equipment inevitably plays a large part in the consideration of so technical an organisation as the RAF. I turn from that to deal with various manpower questions. The Minister dealt with the planned run-down and with the problem I raised last year, which has continued to be a source of grievance, namely the preservation of a career and promotion structure by preventing some NCOs from prolonging their service. I understand all of his arguments which I believe are unanswerable. There has to be such a plan.
On the other hand, the complaints that I have received from NCOs completing their 16 years who have been refused prolongation are bitter and heartfelt. Put quite simply, this is a matter of pension rights. It means the transformation of the best asset in the RAF, a contented and skilled NCO, into a person nursing a sense of grievance against the RAF.
Some of my constituents are certainly in this position. They feel, however wrongly—and I accept that it probably is wrong—that they have been cheated in being put out of the Service when they have many more useful years of work left and when their competence has not hitherto been questioned. They are good


men who have served loyally and well. When men of such seniority harbour a sense of grievance they are likely to make very poor recruiting advertisements.
While I appreciate that the Minister cannot look at the question of the extension of their service without destroying the whole of the pattern which has been worked out for maintaining the career structure, I wonder whether he would look instead at the question of pension availability. Would he look at what is in a very real sense a special case—those men who, after 16 years, are being put out of the Royal Air Force because they have been refused an extension of service—so that they might in pension terms be treated more generously? That would remove the sense of grievance under which they labour and would be an advertisement for the humanity and care with which the Royal Air Force treats its members.
Great progress has been made in the provision of better accommodation for serving men. I have recently visited the Royal Air Force, St. Athan, where the provision of accommodation for single Service men is as unbarracklike as possible. The men serving there must feel a greater sense of privacy and independence which no doubt leads them to a greater feeling of care and protection towards their accommodation. There are shortages of accommodation, particularly for married ranks. How many families are separated in RAF Germany? How long do they have to wait for accommodation, and when does the Minister expect the housing programme for them to be complete? When the Select Committee on Expenditure looked into this it found that there were about 480 separated families.
A question which is tied up with that and is of almost as much importance to young married Service men is how many, particularly in RAF Germany, live in accommodation which is described as very poor in quality? The Minister will know from the evidence given and the investigation made that some of the outside accommodation is well separated from the camp and is also of poor quality. When young Service men marry so early it is important that the wives who have to go to a foreign land should have good accommodation.
Many questions remain on manpower, but I will content myself with raising again the transfer of the Royal Radar Establishment at Pershore. Questions were asked about this in our last debate, and the statement made by the Minister on that occasion has not reassured the people who are employed in the establishment. I understand that the request made by the men to meet the Secretary of State for Defence has not been granted. I ask the Minister to put that request to his right bon. Friend, as those men are labouring under a great sense of injustice. They are unconvinced of the need for, and the economics of, the move to Farnborough for several reasons.
One reason is the congestion of air space over Farnborough. The current edition of Flight contains a letter written by Mr. M. Hawes which deals with congestion over Farnborough on 22nd March when he was in the Farnborough MATZ area radar frequency. We understand that Farnborough is to be preserved for the purpose of the international air show. Is not Farnborough too congested for the transfer of the establishment? Would not the availability of Pershore for landing in case of emergency save the RAF £6 million in spin-off?

Lord Lambton: The air traffic around Farnborough is less than it was some years ago.

Mr. John: That is not the general impression, and it is one reason why someone from the Ministry should see the men urgently and meet their points. The men say that their points are never met.
It has been put to me that the men who are necessary for the work will not be attracted from inside the establishment so that more and more of the work will be contracted out. If that is so, the £1·2 million which was originally estimated as the cost of transferring the establishment to Farnborough will be grossly exceeded. Is the Ministry having difficulty about the range of operations which it is proposed to transfer to Farnborough?
It has been put to me that the transfer to Farnborough would ease the task of unfriendly people in monitoring the systems which are being practised there. Not only could those systems be monitored from sea vessels, but, as the location is so near the metropolis, it would be much easier to monitor them from land.
There may be perfectly good reasons for this transfer. The Government have always claimed that there are. If so, I hope that Ministers will take the trouble to meet the workers and to go through their case point by point. The suspicion that they have voiced to me is that the transfer to Farnborough is designed merely to perpetuate Farnborough as a place to hold the international air show. That may be an unworthy suspicion, but it is their feeling and it deserves an answer.
I come now to low flying aircraft, particularly in Wales. I say that in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who is concerned about low flying over his constituency. I will leave that part to him. Low-flying aircraft do not affect my constituency but they affect the constituencies of my hon. and right hon. Friends further west.
According to a parliamentary answer, 9 per cent. of low level flights occur over Wales, but that is not a meaningful measure of the nuisance and annoyance caused. More meaningful is another answer which states that, for example, in the month of August 1972, there were 2,900 low-level flights over Wales, and in September of that year 1,800.
I understand that in contour flying, which is the training that these pilots are undergoing, aircraft tend to keep to the contours at fairly low altitude and to fly along the valleys. In the parts of Wales most affected by that type of flying the valleys are the most densely inhabited areas. The pilots therefore are not flying over uninhabited territory. My hon. Friends have described graphically the disruption of life and the misery which are caused by low-level flights.
I appreciate that low flying is essential for the training of pilots, but is it not possible to route more flights over uninhabited areas? If we cannot eliminate them altogether, cannot we at least minimise the degree of disruption to communities caused'by low-level flights? The Minister, with great pride, has described the efforts which the Royal Air Force makes to assist the civil population by performing sea rescues, and so on. The RAF has built up a good name for itself and a good reputation with the public. After all these efforts, it is a pity to dissipate that

good will by continuing with low-level fights over inhabited areas.
I wish to mention, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon the low-level flights over Cefn Cribwr in his constituency. The Minister has said in advance that he will reply to that point. I understand that the minimum height level was raised to 1,000 feet, because the aircraft are in transit from mid-Wales to Devon. Therefore the minimum height at which they could fly was raised to 1,000 feet. I am told that this eased the problem considerably However, I am also told that this has slipped back and that pilots are not observing it. Flights are taking place at very much lower altitudes.
There are two possibilities. The first is that the instructions have been changed, in which case I should be glad to have the Minister's explanation. The second, if the instructions have not been changed, is that they are not being obeyed, and that is a fairly serious matter upon which I am sure the Minister will wish to comment. I look forward to his doing so.
I have dealt with the need for our forces to earn public respect. I do not believe that that is altogether bad. Their need to earn respect rather than having it conferred on them automatically is a powerful spur to them to achieve high levels of excellence. I believe that it has produced in the RAF a body of men who are renowned and admired by all. What they want from Parliament is the long view of their role, for which I have asked, for their own security of occupation and certainty about the future. Given that, I know that they will continue to serve us in the future, as they have in the past, with exemplary devotion and skill.

5.31 p.m.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: Each year in these Royal Air Force debates there is some slight change to be recorded, even though on some occasions it is hardly noticeable. Yet, when one examines all the changes or the evolution over the past two decades, the result is truly amazing.
I first took part in the Air Estimates debates, as they then were, 23 years ago. I have spoken in many annual discussions on the RAF since 1950. Always in those days there was a small dedicated company of hon. Members who sought to


speak. When the late Mr. Arthur Henderson was Secretary of State there were speeches from Vere Harvey, now Lord Harvey, from Ian Orr-Ewing, now Lord Orr-Ewing, from "Laddie" Lucas and from me, all from the Tory side of the House. Then, as you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, came the long years of "Geordie" Ward, now Lord Ward, whose PPS in those early days was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Generally in those speeches there were congratulations for the RAF's work and progress. There was an effort to boost recruiting by opining that there would be a requirement for trained pilots for manned aircraft for many years to come. Invariably there was a call for more money to meet all the requirements of the Service.
In those immediate post-war years there were shortages. There was reorganisation. There was National Service and competition for recruits. There were also some anxieties for the world-wide responsibilities which still remained with us.
Gradually over the years we sought to streamline the Service, to strengthen existing alliances and to create new ones. Major re-equipment programmes were envisaged, planned and begun. Always the same principles endured through the years—the necessity for real power. To unify the three Services, Navy, Army and Air Force, was a tremendous undertaking. Many were the teething troubles before the project was completed by the now Lord Thorneycroft as Secretary of State for Defence. I saw something of it in those days because during his period as Secretary of State I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Today the major re-equipment programme begun 10 years ago in the mid-1960s is well advanced so that before 1980 we are expected to have more than 1,000 new front-line and other aircraft at a cost of more than £1,000 million. Yet we could still, as always, do with more money. There are those who think that more money should be available. But the main task to my mind is to ensure that such money as is available is spent in the best possible manner.
The payment of good money as an inducement to good recruits is necessary
 

in this technological and competitive age, and the wage bill accounts for over half the RAF's expenditure. I believe that the figure is 53 per cent. This can be reduced as a percentage only if there is greater gross national production and we can then take a larger share of the national cake. We should aim to reduce the percentages to at least 50 and, to my mind, the ideal may be about 45 per cent. This means that manpower has to be streamlined and that maximum effort in diverse forms should be obtained on the manning side of the Service. I believe that that is what is being done with great success. The capacity for greater effort appears to be there, and there is evidence that present-day training ensures diverse and maximum output. Thus the Service is able to make better use of its skilled and dedicated manpower.
All this encourages everyone to become more cost conscious, and the management training on commercial lines is beginning to pay off. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary made some mention of ideas and proposals which have come from the staff. Will he confirm that more than 1,200 have come from staff in all parts of the Service?
There must be great satisfaction about the change made in recent years whereby a cadet passes straight from school to university without losing the college spirit associated with Cranwell where he spends some time before and after his university course and attachment to a university air squadron.
The closing of some Training Command stations and plans for further closures can be accomplished without loss of capability if the Service is able to capitalise on recent advances in training techniques and, of course, all this makes for sensible economies. Is my hon. Friend in a position to comment on the feasibility of a main base concept, with one for mechanical, one for electronic and one for administrative trades? Is it true that Training Command moneys are divided almost equally between flying training and ground training, and does my hon. Friend think that that is the right proportion? Can my hon. Friend also say a word about the 1,200 overseas students whom the Royal Air Force trains annually and about how much we take from the overseas governments concerned in cash payments? Is this part of the RAF's work which is likely to increase?
Although the RAF's main task is the responsibility for air defence in the United Kingdom and a share in European defence generally, provision has to be made for offensive and defensive forces for maritime operations, and to my mind we still retain a global role. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary comment on our plans for the defence of some of our sea routes, especially round the Cape, and whether air power can be readily available in the event of a sudden flare-up or offensive incident against our shipping.
I believe that we have been able to save wisely by retaining a large proportion of our forces at home and to have access to air fields by arrangements with allies and other friendly countries throughout the world. I applaud the regular exercises and exchange of personnel which provide opportunities for good training and for real experience. Again, it is a system which makes maximum use of the moneys available.
Strategically the real strength of the RAF overseas lies in its ability rapidly to reinforce small skeleton units in an emergency with forces capable of making a real impact on any local situation. A varied and versatile force of military transport aircraft can rapidly take ground crews, spares and armaments as required. The new Strike Command in the United Kingdom plays its important part in such overseas reinforcement. To my mind, this flexibility is one of the fundamental strengths of air power.
With the coming into service of the Anglo-French Jaguar to replace the Phantom, which we are promised later this year, and with the British-German-Italian multi-role combat aircraft, the MRCA, due in five or six years, further substantial modernisation will have been effected. So we continue with the evolution of the Service. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something more about the MRCA this evening, as he has already been requested.
Those of us who took part in those early debates and others who have followed the progress of the Royal Air Force must be staggered by the evolution and tremendous progress of the Service. It is a story that should be more widely told.
This week I was glancing through old copies of the Air League's Air Pictorial and I read from a leading article of four years ago:
It is our good fortune to have opportunities to meet and listen to students. To one question, 'Are Britons concerned about aviation?', they gave a remarkably unanimous retort: Of course they are, but they find the whole business too inaccessible. They can find no recognised way in to find out about it, to sample it from inside and, without being committed, to learn.
For the dedicated enthusiast there is the valuable ATC with its several flying scholarships, and there are other means.
Today I believe that recruitment does not present much difficulty and that the Service is able to be selective. But there is still a great public relations duty to inform more fully the vast British public of the excellent work and progress of the Royal Air Force. I think that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was saying this in rather more critical terms.
Perhaps the Minister will bend his thoughts to the task of making the public more generally aware of their Air Force. We have a good story to tell, and it should be told. There are congratulations for all concerned, and there should be a wider sphere of enlightenment to make for a greater realisation of the value of a Service which reached its fiftieth anniversary only a few years ago, a Service which continues to be a sure shield for this country.
Planning for the future must and does continue. I understand—I think that this was confirmed in the Minister's speech— that discussions in considerable detail are proceeding in the Royal Air Force Department with the procurement executive and the aerospace industry for new aircraft in 10 to 15 years. I understand that organisation of flying and trade training for future years are also under current examination.
I am sure that the vast British public would join me in saluting members of the Royal Air Force and those who run it. A deterrent force, up to the minute, flexible, and streamlined will be required for many years to come. The cost will always be considerable. But it is essential to the maintenance of peace, and if our people are kept informed of its work and


progress, money and support will always be forthcoming.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Interesting and indeed fascinating to a layman, such as myself, as the debate has so far been, it is not my intention to contribute any personal thoughts on the role of the Royal Air Force or to comment further on any of the strategic, or technical considerations or manpower requirements that have occupied the attention of the House this evening.
I wish to take this opportunity to focus the minds of hon. Members on one particular aspect that is a direct consequence of this nation's training of its flying personnel—namely, the problems that arise resulting from low-flying military aircraft in approved low-flying areas.
Before developing my speech any further, I should like to preface the content of my subsequent remarks in two ways. The first is simply that I support wholeheartedly the contribution that the Royal Air Force makes both to the air strategy of this country and to NATO. Thus, it follows that I recognise that our pilots must be trained in low-flying skills.
Secondly, I accept that it is preferable for this training to take place over areas and regions having a low population density, which tend to be rural areas located in the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. Large areas of the Bodmin division of Cornwall, which I represent, if I may give a brief geographical lesson to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), fit into these criteria. Indeed, my hon. Friend informed me only yesterday, in answer to a Question, that military aircraft are allowed to carry out low-level training over a little less than half of the United Kingdom as a whole and over approximately one-third of the land area of Cornwall. This illustrates the extent over which the problems associated with low flying can occur.
Having stated categorically that I accept the need for pilots to be trained, I should like to examine certain consequential aspects and effects. I know that the House will understand if I draw on examples and experiences from Cornwall, and my constituency in particular. I fully accept that they reflect similar

circumstances elsewhere in the United Kingdom—for example, in Wales, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
The first aspect concerns the selection of the areas themselves. I have already indicated the type of area that is designated, but may I ask my hon. Friend to inform me why these areas should not be made public? There seems no reason why this should not be the case.
Furthermore, it might on the odd occasion influence a person's decision as to where he will live. For example, I have never known a solicitor's searches on behalf of a client intending to purchase a farm or house in my constituency on the margins of or on Bodmin Moor itself to state that that house or farm is situated in a low-flying area. It might even have affected the value and price that my potential constituent was prepared to pay for that home in that location.
The second aspect relates to the suitability of an area. Will my hon. Friend inform me how often these areas are reviewed and, if necessary, their boundaries revised? I ask this question for the very good reason that the geographical distribution of our population is constantly changing. Let us take, for example, the southern fringes of Bodmin Moor which are included in the approved low-flying area where there are a number of fast-expanding villages. Ten years ago—indeed, only five years ago in some instances—these villages, although all within a six-mile radius of the local market town of Liskeard, were completely separate entities with populations that had hardly altered probably over the previous 50 years. In the last five years or so these old Cornish villages such as St. Cleer, Pensilva, Linkinhorne and Darite have without exception expanded. All have new housing estates and in consequence their populations have doubled, and in some cases more than trebled. Therefore, the Minister must accept the need for a constant revision of the situation.
This leads me to my third point, the subject of safety. As my hon. Friend is already aware, the problem of low-flying military aircraft was highlighted in my constituency on Tuesday, 27th March when there was an accident involving a Royal Air Force Hunter jet which flew into one of the supporting stays of the


television transmitter on Caradon Hill. Fortunately, the pilot baled out. I hope that he makes a quick and successful recovery from his injuries. Furthermore, on that occasion, as far as I am aware, there was no damage to property. As my hon. Friend has already informed me, a full investigation is being carried and will include all relevant safety aspects.
I shall not expect the Minister in his reply to refer to this specific incident, but I believe that this is an appropriate occasion on which to make certain observations of a more general nature. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Caradon Hill area is within an authorised low-flying area? If it is, is it necessary to include that area? It not only includes the prominent local landmark of Caradon Hill, which is 1,212 feet above sea level and which stands above the level of surrounding countryside, but it also contains a television aerial mast on top, which is a further 780 feet high. In addition, the low-flying area is located adjacent to the growth villages to which I have referred.
I do not wish to sound provocative or alarmist, but a local person has calculated that had this Hunter aircraft at the speed it was travelling hit the mast at an angle two or three degrees different from that at which in fact it struck the mast, it could well have crashed and the parts would have been spread over a populated area.
I make this point deliberately because I believe that it helps to justify the genuine concern that is being expressed locally in respect of the wisdom of selecting this particular district and the associated fear for peoples' safety. Since the accident a petition has been organised and so far 450 people have signed it. The terms of the petition are that this district should be withdrawn from the list of approved low-flying areas. I share their apprehension.
My fourth and final point relates to the conditions under which low flying may take place and what instructions are laid down. Could my hon. Friend clarify the situation, particularly in respect of permitted heights. Constituents have informed me that exercises often take place in doubtful weather conditions, even though the Department when replying to individuals have stated in terms that

flying only takes place in conditions of good visibility".
Individuals have also drawn my attention to the fact that on occasions these aircraft fly at almost ground level. A constituent who runs a pony trekking business on Bodmin Moor has described an unpleasant incident when his horses were disturbed with people on and around them, while farmers and other private individuals have described to me similar adverse effects which have resulted from the activities of low-flying aircraft. I originally drew my hon. Friend's attention to this matter in July 1971 when the secretary of the local branch of the National Farmers' Union approached me about the matter. Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which the Claims Commission works particularly in proving liability?
Since then there have been further occasions, and I know from first-hand information from my constituents and from the Minister in answer to parliamentary Questions that his Department has received representations direct from a large number of my constituents. In addition the divisional headquarters of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary at Liskeard has sent on nine formal complaints as well as receiving other verbal representation.
I appreciate that this is not a new problem, nor is it confined to my constituency. In addition to the recent incident involving the Hunter at Caradon Hill, our area in south-east Cornwall has been the scene of two other accidents in which military aircraft, both helicopters, have been involved since August 1972. In both cases electric power lines were affected.
I hope the House will realise the understandable concern felt about this real problem in certain parts of my constituency. I trust that the Minister will not only answer my questions but will also provide me with the assurances which both my constituents and I require.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like to begin by taking up some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the cost of our defence


forces but I would remind him that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. It is difficult to work out exactly what is the cost of eternal vigilance, but I am sure that unless we are prepared to pay that cost, we shall not have democracy. I also remind him that in the 1930s we were unwilling to pay that price and nearly lost our freedom.

Mr. John: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that both Opposition and Government Front Benches have made clear that defence expenditure depends on the proper calls of other spending Departments. We have had this argument on almost every Service Estimate. Does he believe that we should cripple our own economy by obtaining armaments and thus make the price of freedom or the price of eternal vigilance not worth it? The freedom one is defending in those circumstances becomes meaningless.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that intervention. It brings me to a point that I intended to make. Perhaps we might modify the concept of the price of democracy being eternal vigilance by having cost-effectiveness within that price. That was the point that I suspect the hon. Gentleman was trying to make. I was seeking to sound at least a warning signal that we should not imagine that, somehow or other, defence is the one area in our economy where we can make cuts without ultimately damaging the whole framework and structure on which our economy is built.
Having said that, I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today about streamlining and slimming down the Royal Air Force without at the same time giving away anything in efficiency or operational ability. This seems absolutely right. It seems to follow the line of cost-effectiveness which we require from our defence forces.
But even so I would like to ask the question whether we have thought out the operational rôle of the Royal Air Force in the mid-1970s and onwards in quite the way that we should. Reading the White Paper, one has to accept that although the Royal Air Force will have a lot of new equipment—which I welcome—it has two different rôles to fulfil. One rôle is to play its proper part in the

defence of Western Europe, in terms of NATO, but, secondly and no less important, is its other rôle which is to play its part in the defence of these islands. For, in the last resort it is a part of the defensive structure of this country. Therefore, one has somehow to reconcile what seem to be two totally different rôles, which in turn demand different responses.
In the United Kingdom terms I am coming to the opinion that we must think in terms of what I would describe as a single national security force rather than three separate Services. I have recently had an opportunity to read about the work of the French Gendarmerie. I was surprised to find that the French Gendarmerie does not consist only of policemen, as we all imagine when we go to France and think that the police are called gendarmes, but is a military force which has within it soldiers, airmen and country policemen.
I am coming to the opinion that that concept is perhaps the right concept for the United Kingdom's security forces. Indeed, as the operations in Northern Ireland develop one begins to realise that, whether or not we wish it, our forces in Northern Ireland are becoming just such an internal security force. For instance, it is a little surprising to realise that the largest helicopter force in Northern Ireland is not an RAF unit but the 36 helicopters of the Army Air Corps which are operating at brigade level and doing a most valuable job.
If one asks members of the Army Air Corps how they see their rôle, they argue that their rôle is close operational support for troops. That seems absolutely right. There has been an Army Air Corps for a very long time in this country. I believe that the genesis of the Royal Air Force, to some extent at least, was from Army flying, although in those days it was observation balloons. Therefore, it does not seem surprising when one reads an article suggesting that the Harrier aircraft should most logically go into the Army Air Corps and not be operated by the Royal Air Force at all, because the Harrier is a close-support aircraft designed to assist troops.
Although one may argue that at present the Army Air Corps is in no way equipped to cope with such a complex aircraft the logic of having it in the Army


Air Corps rather than the Royal Air Force seems inescapable. That also applies to the logic of having a medium-lift helicopter in the Army Air Corps rather than the RAF, because a medium-lift helicopter would be there for the logistic support not only of Harriers but of troops.
I put forward this idea because I believe that logically it is the right development. However, I do not want to stray too far into the area of the Army Air Corps as this is a debate on the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind the Puma and the Wessex?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: No, I am talking about the Chinook, of which we have none, and the Sikorsky aircraft, which is I think the SR53. We badly need this medium-lift helicopter for logistic back-up. It is in service in Western Europe and has given extremely good service to the United States forces in Vietnam.
Even if it is too much to suggest that Harriers and medium-lift helicopters should go into the Army Air Corps at this stage, may I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that at least one of the lessons of Operation Sky Warrior was that this helicopter could have a vital rôle to play. Is it not conceivable, with the end of the conflict in Vietnam, at least in American terms, that there will now be a large surplus of these machines on the market which we could buy at a comparatively cheap price and thus give our forces a piece of equipment which on one or two occasions my hon. Friend has agreed the RAF would dearly like to have but has so far been prevented from buying through lack of cash? When I visited the members of the RAF's 38 Group at Odiham, they agreed that this was a machine they would like to have. It is crucial as I have said if we are to give the Harrier the logistic back-up which will make it the flexible vertical take-off aircraft that we want it to be.
I started my speech by questioning the rôle of the RAF in the two tasks that it has to perform. The close support aviation which the Army Air Corps provides to the battlefield, and which would in terms of the maritime Harrier be given to

the Navy, is not necessarily the task of the Royal Air Force. As, I see it the RAF's task is the much wider task of guaranteeing air supremacy over the battle zone in terms of manned aircraft, interception, reconnaissance, strike and airborne early warning.
That naturally brings me to the aircraft which is being built to fulfil exactly some of those rôles—the multi-rôle combat aircraft. I listened to what my hon. Friend had to say this afternoon. Like other hon. Members, perhaps, I would have wished that he could have given us a little more detail about this extremely important military aircraft One welcomes it in every sense. But one wishes so much that the doubts which seem to still hang over it could once and for all be blown away and that we could know for certain that the RAF will have it and that it will become the standard aircraft for three of the air forces of Western Europe.
At a time when so much is being spoken about the integration of the European aerospace industry, one can only regret that the French have decided to have nothing to do with this project and to build an aircraft to fulfil a similar rôle but of purely French design and construction. That is a sad thing for a Europe which is trying to unite.
I was concerned by the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd that there might have been any modification in the performance of this aircraft. I do not know what he had in mind, but I should be very unhappy to think that such an important aeroplane would not be as good as we need it to be and that an attempt was being made to reduce its performance simply to meet a cost figure. This aeroplane is far too important to the whole of Western Europe for that sort of jiggery-pokery to be allowable.
From the MRCA I turn to the whole question of airborne early warning. I was delighted to read in the White Paper that the conversion of the 12 Shackletons to this rôle is nearly complete. I welcome that but at the same time I cannot dodge, any more than anyone else in this House can dodge, the fact that the Shackleton is a very old aircraft. Although no doubt these aircraft have been refurbished and are almost as good as new, that means that they are as good as this aircraft was when it first entered service so many


years ago. I hope therefore that we shall press ahead with the conversion of Nimrod to this rôle. In every way Nimrod has lived up to expectations and seems ideally suited to be an airborne early warning aircraft. I believe I detected in what my hon. Friend said a suggestion that this was in the Government's mind.
Perhaps I could add a further thought to the whole question of airborne early warning because it has been put to me that at the moment we are using two aircraft for two rôles which are very similar. We have an aircraft for airborne early warning and we have another aircraft for flight refuelling. Of course the Victor Is, soon to be Victor IIs, are doing and will do sterling service in providing flight refuelling; and we are all aware that by flight refuelling it is possible to keep the fighter screen many hundreds of miles away from its land bases and to give it an adequate ability to protect both the shores of these islands and, in its European rôle, and NATO task which it may be asked to fulfil.
If we need any proof that flight refuelling can keep a fighter aircraft in the air for almost as long as one wishes, we have only to remind ourselves of the London to New York air race, which the Harrier was able to win simply because it was refuelled so many times over the North Atlantic, although it is an aircraft of extremely short range. If, therefore, the tanker force has this extremely important rôle of keeping our fighter aircraft, and therefore our fighter screen, at long range from base, it is also undoubtedly true that if airborne early warning is to be effective it, too, must be operated not far from those fighter aircraft and certainly hundreds of miles away from its bases—that is, if early warning is to be meaningful.
Why, therefore, if we have two aircraft fulfilling rôles in the same vicinity, should we not have one aircraft to do both tasks? Of course it may be argued that the Shackleton could not do it and that the Victor I and Victor II could not do it but if—I put this forward as a possibility—the Chinese order for VC10s becomes a reality, I hope we shall give very serious consideration, if the VC10 production line is to be reopened, to ordering VC10s for airborne early warning tanker operation. I have

been told by Service chiefs to whom I have spoken that this is an ideal aircraft for the tanker rôle and that because of its ability to carry heavy loads it could carry the radar equipment to make it an airborne early warning aircraft. That suggestion seems to have a good deal of credibility and worthy of investigation.
In the course of this debate the Harrier aircraft has been referred to yet again, by myself in terms of the Army Air Corps and by others. No debate of this kind ever goes by without all kinds of compliments being paid to the Harrier. I wish, however, that those compliments could have been turned into more positive results for the aircraft. Whether it be the land-based version or the now more controversial maritime-based aircraft, we always pay compliments to it but seldom follow it up with positive action.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We have paid it compliments for 10 years.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: As my hon. and gallant Friend says, compliments have been paid to it for years, but there is not much to show for the compliments. We all appreciate that this is an aircraft with outstanding abilities. Yet somehow or other one feels that we have never quite realised those abilities as should have done and that, in maritime terms at least, there has been a most extraordinary dragging of feet. I hope we will agree even now that a maritime version should be continued.
Just in case that does not happen, however, I suggest to my hon. Friend that with flight refuelling one can maintain one's fighter force over one's fleet and give it adequate cover without the requirement of actually having organic air, in terms of aircraft, operating from those ships. Thus the tanker aircraft today, and perhaps in the future, seems to me to be becoming an increasingly important aircraft in giving the Royal Air Force all kinds of abilities that are not necessarily built into the aircraft in terms of range and so on.
Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the accidents to which the Harrier has been prone. I simply ask my hon. Friend two questions. In referring to RAF Harriers the Sunday Times suggested that one of the problems from which this aircraft suffered was that if it ingested birds at low level


its engine was likely to stop and it had not the ability to restart, thus causing the pilot to eject speedily and the aircraft to crash. What was needed, therefore, was a modification which the Americans had fitted to their Harriers. I understand from a reply that was given to me that we are proceeding with this on RAF Harriers. I should like to know whether all our Harriers have been modified so that the engine will not stop as a result of bird ingestion.
I should also like to ask my hon. Friend what further measures have been introduced for airfield protection against bird strike. Last summer I had an opportunity to see airfields that are protected by falcons. I was most impressed by an American Air Force base that I saw in East Anglia, where falcons were used and which appeared to a great extent to be bird-free. I believe that the RAF have tried falcons from time to time but has not continued with them. Whether this was because environmentalists argued that the shortage of English peregrine falcons was such that to use them in this way might hurt the species or because they were not found successful, I am not sure. Certainly the Navy used them at Lossiemouth until the day it was handed over to the RAF. I wonder whether falcons are still being used there, because as I then said what I saw of them was extremely impressive. Just one or two flights by falcons had all the other birds flying for their lives, without any necessity to kill. This would be one means of protecting our aircraft from the hazard of bird strike.
From falcons of a feathery kind I turn to the new RAF aircraft to be called after the falcon's offspring, the Hawker Siddeley 1182 trainer, the Tercel. I have only one question to ask my hon. Friend. When is this aircraft likely to come into service? It is clearly an important trainer aircraft in the RAF training programme and I should like to have an idea of when the RAF will be given it.
I now turn to the question of servicing. Last year I visited the RAF centre at St. Athan, to which the hon. Member for Pontypridd referred, and I saw the extensive servicing and maintenance work being carried out there on a variety of aircraft. This year I have visited certain

parts of the aircraft industry that were also carrying out servicing and maintenance. I found a great sense of unease about the desire of the RAF to keep so much of its servicing to itself and not to use the very extensive facilities of our aircraft industry to do this work.
The companies I saw made the point that by continuing to do Service maintenance civil companies were able to keep an fait with the advanced technology in Service aircraft. Thus we had a tuned-up aircraft industry able to help the RAF, and those companies thought that they were probably more cost-effective than anything the RAF could do for itself after perhaps first- or second-line service. Yet those same companies told me they believed that, if anything, the RAF was doing more rather than less of its servicing and maintenance. They found this extremely difficult to understand.
They also made the point that the French aircraft industry does most of the servicing of French military aircraft, which gives that industry the ability to know about the technology of modern military aircraft and thus to be more competitive in what it can provide. This point has come up before in RAF debates. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raising it years ago. The industry generally is worried about it.
I turn next to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus and a visit I paid to Cyprus last summer with a defence delegation. I have already written to my hon. Friend about the visit, because it was not an unqualified success. I want to speak about the lessons I learned from that visit, but first I should pay tribute to the RAF personnel who helped to organise it and who looked after us so well while we were there.
We were very impressed by the morale of all the Service people we met, but one problem was clearly nagging many of them, particularly those who were due to return to this country soon to retire. I refer to the cost of housing. I do not want to make too much of it in an RAF debate, but I was surprised by the great number who asked "How shall we be able to find somewhere to live when we retire?" I do not know whether there is any way in which the Services can help such people, but they were shaken by the prices they


thought they would have to pay when they got home.
The aircraft that carried us out to Cyprus was a Royal Air Force VC10 Why do we use VC10s dressed in RAF livery to perform a task that could be performed as well by BEA, as it is now. and no doubt could be performed by civil charter companies? The RAF VC10 in which I travelled was not a particularly comfortable or well-serviced aircraft. There was nothing in it that would commend me to fly RAF if I could fly BEA. I hope that that is not too harsh a comment. But it is not my view alone. I think that most of those who flew with me felt the same. I wonder why the RAF thinks it necessary to have a small fleet of its own airliners when Service men and their families could just as easily be moved by BEA, or British Airways as it is to be, or by aircraft chartered from the many charter companies in this country.
I was forced to wonder how many Service men with their equipment could be carried in a VC10. There did not seem to be much room for civilians carrying very light luggage. Do we need VC10s for trooping operations to any great extent? We already have a fleet of Hercules aircraft which can carry troops as well as freight.
One point that struck me about Cyprus was that neither the Lightnings nor the Vulcans in service there have light recorders. It is time more and more Service aircraft carried flight recorders, as do civil aircraft, because the need to ascertain the cause of an accident is just as important with a military aircraft as with a civil aircraft. I should like to think that flight recorders would become more of a standard fitting in military aircraft in the years to come.
In Cyprus the sovereign base areas are costing this country many millions of pounds a year. They provide a main airfield from which we are operating our Vulcans and Lightnings. To make those areas effective there are 3,960 Service personnel, but as a back-up to them there are 8,000 wives and children. A ratio of two to one to make the bases work seems to me to be rather high and disproportionately expensive.
The limitations of the sovereign base areas imposed by the Cyprus Government, the fact that they are not NATO bases but simply British bases and that any attempt by NATO to use them is frowned upon, gives them a rather limited use. Therefore, is it necessary to have such a huge number of people when what we are seeking to do is to have 3,000 Service personnel in the base areas?
We make an important contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, and I welcome that, although I wonder why we give our contribution free whereas all the other countries receive a financial contribution in return from the United Nations. On cost-effectiveness grounds therefore, I wonder whether the limited uses of the sovereign base area bases are worth the considerable expenditure, and whether we need to provide the facilities for so many civilians to have such a comparatively small number of Service men actively employed.

6.26 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is an interesting reflection on our debates on defence subjects that the Opposition back benches are completely empty, and have been practically empty all afternoon, and that the back benches on the Government side are almost empty. After all, we are discussing a Service that costs the taxpayer about £1,500 million a year. That means that each Member who is voluntarily present, if we disregard the two Front Bench spokesmen, who have no option but to be here, is in fact approving about £250 million. That makes me feel rather generous, although my hon. Friend the Minister will understand if I say that I wish it were even a little more in my case.
I suppose the Government could claim that the empty benches mean that their defence policy has received almost universal support, because no one wants to question it very much. If that is so, and if approval is almost universal, it leaves me out on a limb, because there are one or two aspects about which I want to express myself as being somewhat less than happy.
However, I warmly welcome the additional aircraft ordered to increase the general purpose combat forces of the Royal Air Force. These additions will make some contribution, though not yet


a sufficient contribution, to make up the leeway in the strength of the RAF brought about by the vicissitudes of defence policy under the Labour Government.
I have a few specific points to put to my hon. Friend. First, can he explain exactly what is the Government's attitude towards the air protection of our trade overseas outside the NATO area? There are many baffling and confusing aspects of the matter. Before the election we were told that the Labour Government's decision to withdraw from east of Suez was completely wrong. The importance of the trade routes in the Indian Ocean was emphasised by the Conservative Party managers, and the Labour Government's refusal to sell aircraft and equipment to South Africa for maritime defence of the Cape route was criticised. Their decision to scrap the aircraft carriers was described as creating a "serious gap in our defences".
Much more recently—in the past few months—the Royal Navy presentation team from the Defence Department has been going round the country emphasising the importance of the protection of overseas trade and giving some striking statistics about the sort of trade we might have to protect, both from the sea and from the air. For example, in its official handout the team points out that 120 ocean-going ships arrive every day in Western Europe, discharging more than 1 million tons of cargo, half of this to United Kingdom ports.
The 1973 White Paper, the Royal Air Force aspect of which we are discussing this afternoon, under the heading "Development in the Threat", after describing the vastly increased naval activity in the oceans of the world, goes on to say on page 2:
Russian long-range aircraft are active over all the sea areas around the coasts of Europe and far out over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; on occasions they have also been seen over some areas of the Caribbean Sea and the Indian Ocean.
But in the context of that threat we have had from the Government no decision about seaborne aircraft, no decision about the maritime Harrier, which we have discussed so often, no decision about who is to fly the Harrier if it is

used at sea and no decision so far as I know about the future of aircrew who are still flying in the Fleet Air Arm.
We have no decision, or at least no action, about the sale of Nimrod aircraft to the South African Government. I appreciate of course the Government's political dilemma about this, but the sale of essentially maritime aircraft such as Nimrod cannot possibly be linked with approval of all the policies of the South African Government. Nor could such aircraft in practical terms possibly be used for any internal repressive measures.
I raised this subject during the defence debate last month and made the specific point that it was not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that the South African Government had not asked for Nimrods. As I explained at the time, it is my belief that that Government want them and need them if the Cape route is to be properly patrolled. Obviously, they are not willing to embarrass themselves or the British Government by asking publicly for them until they know that supply will not be refused. I have had no reply about this from my hon. Friend the Minister and I wonder if he can say something about it when he replies to the debate this evening.
On the wider issue of fair support for the fleet certainly exercise Strong Express revealed grave deficiencies in the ability of the Royal Air Force to supply air support on the spot and on the dot. In the Daily Telegraph, the very well informed Desmond Wettern said of exercise Strong Express:
… even exercises in the North Sea involving virtually the whole of RAF Strike Command showed that there simply were not enough planes to go round.
The White Paper shows very small allocations of expenditure and personnel for the maritime rôle, and in my submission the situation is made even more worrying by alleged differences within the Ministry. On 3rd March this year the Economist had an admirable article drawing attention to these differences within what is supposed to be an integrated Ministry.
I have the article with me and I should like to read two very short extracts from it:
Britain, it might be said, is conservatively sticking to a tradition. But unless it deliberately chooses to become a third rank, third rate naval power, what else can it do? Of


all the countries of western Europe it is the most dependent on seaborne trade; and its history has made it acutely aware that the protection of its shipping—and hence its economic well-being and even survival—cannot be restricted to some arbitrarily defined zone close to its own shores, but must extend all the way from remote parts of lading.
It goes on to say:
And, as the Russians push their warships out into the open seas of the world, the countries of western Europe cannot but increasingly recognise that their seaborne trade needs the protection provided by the maritime powers.
In suggesting how to deal with this problem the Economist points out what I believe to be the existing situation within the Ministry—the differences within the Ministry of which I have spoken and which worry me very considerably. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something specifically about this.
The Economist says:
The RAF, only too aware of how much money is to be spent on the multi-role combat aircraft, is sceptical about the advantages of carrying a few Harriers aboard the through-deck carriers. It has doubts about their effectiveness. But it also wonders and worries whether once the navy has got some Harriers to sea it might demand in time a specialised maritime jump jet, with a different airframe and a more powerful engine. In short, the RAF sees in the maritime Harrier and its possible successor another competitor for scarce funds.
Both the RAF and the navy couch their arguments in terms of operational requirements and capabilities. The debate between them has some echoes of the earlier, fiercer struggle about aircraft carriers. Like that brawl, the fight is largely to do with money. That being so, only a Cabinet decision will resolve it. And, in view of the politicians' penchant for compromise, it must be wondered, if the navy does get some Harrier aircraft, over what time-span will the through deck cruisers be brought into service and what other cherished projects may it have to postpone or give up altogether.
I emphasise that I know very well from my experience that divergencies between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy do not occur at a practical level, but I am worried whether there is some divergency at the top of the tree within the Ministry.
The pain fact is that shore-based aircraft cannot adequately cover operations of the Fleet even in the NATO area, let alone in more distant waters. To sum up, in the face of a growing threat of tremendous Russian expansion in all the oceans of the world, the British Govern-

ment's policy about maritime air defence seems to be completely in the doldrums.
The Minister appears to be searching for something and has been doing so for some minutes. Perhaps he is searching for a policy! If he cannot make a definite statement about this question of maritime air policy today, can he tell us openly that a difficulty exists and can he assure the House that the Government will grasp this nettle?
The second subject I wish to raise with the Minister is the question of the Royal Air Force involvement in search and rescue operations around our coasts. There are, of course, several different organisations concerned with marine search and rescue. There are Royal Air Force and Royal Navy helicopters; there is the Coastguard; there are various local organisations manned by volunteers, usually on a small scale; and there is of course the Royal National Life-Boat Institution which, I need hardly emphasise, is an independent organisation financed entirely by public subscriptions. I ought perhaps to declare an interest, although not a financial one, because I am a member of the Management Committee of the RNLI.
There is sometimes agitation to put all these various and different organisations under centralised control. For example, only last week the Daily Telegraph weekend magazine contained an article by a journalist called Michael Cope under the heading "Divided they Save". The subheading said:
There are about 4,000 sea rescues each year and many of these are rescues of pleasure craft close inshore. Is it time for the Government to establish a centrally financed rescue service?
I should like to make the point that it is quite wrong to suppose that any centrally-financed rescue service would produce better results than we see today. There is in fact a Government committee to co-ordinate marine search and rescue, which is chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry and on which there is Service representation. This committee is making very good headway indeed in achieving closer practical co-ordination between the RNLI and all branches of the service, both civil and military. It is true to say that the relationship between the Royal Air Force and the RNLI is particularly good and regular exercises


are carried out when these will be beneficial. Co-ordination in any emergency between lifeboats and helicopters is the responsibility of the Coastguard and the present system works well. I strongly urge the Government not to change this system in favour of any centrally-financed system.
In connection with civilian air-sea rescue, Questions have been asked in the House criticising the fact that Government expenditure is involved in rescuing civilians—yachtsmen for example—at sea. I urge exactly the opposite point of view. Generally, the Service aircraft and manpower exist in any event, so that only minimal additional expenditure is involved in using them for any rescue operation. Again, search and rescue operations, with their atmosphere of urgency and reality, are extremely useful and valuable training for the forces. Thirdly, the occasional dramatic rescue is extremely valuable to the Service from the point of view of public relations and in recruiting.
I now have several relatively minor matters to put. First, we know now that our delegation to the European Parliament has a dreadful job in going to and from Brussels and other cities on the Continent. Apparently our colleagues have to go as tourists with economy-class tickets, having to use crowded airports in summer for example. I believe that if we are to continue, as I am confident we shall, to send delegations to the European Parliament—hopefully, from both sides of the House—the delegation should be taken there properly, point to point, preferably by helicopter. Who better than the Royal Air Force to start such a system? I do not think it is right that our colleagues going to the European Parliament should have to mill around crowded airports behind queues of children with buckets and spades and the rest, because that is completely at variance with their responsibilities and parliamentary duties.
Secondly, can my hon. Friend say something about the future of the Royal Observer Corps? He mentioned the various measures which have been taken by the Government regarding passive defence. The Royal Observer Corps, which has a very important history, has a rôle to play in such passive defence.

From my knowledge of it, I believe that some reassurance about its future would be valuable.
Thirdly, I have two points to put affecting the personnel of the forces, specifically the Royal Air Force. First, the Services' voting procedures need to be overhauled from top to bottom. They are far too complicated. In my experience, when a General Election comes along very few Service men are properly enfranchised. Secondly, there are wide anomalies in the forces' pensions for widows. Widows' pensions at the rate of half the husband's pension were introduced into the Civil Service last year. Can my hon. Friend indicate when the provision of half the husband's pension will be reintroduced for the Armed Forces?
I have made a few criticisms but I end by emphasing that shortcomings in our air policy are not in my view the fault of the Royal Air Force. I pay great tribute to the Royal Air Force. Although I served in the Royal Navy, I lived with the Royal Air Force and flew with it for very many months at a time both in peace and war, and I shall carry my admiration and affection for it to my grave. It is not the fault of the Royal Air Force that our air defence policy is in rather low water. It is our fault in this House for starving it and the other Services of the necessary funds.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In previous debates of this kind, I have tried not to be repetitious and I have tried to analyse different aspects of air policy. I must begin by declaring an interest, although a tiny one. I am an occasional lecturer at the Royal Air Force's officer cadet training unit at Henlow, and that should be known.
In the past, I have tended to dwell at length upon the Soviet threat in the air. That needs no repetition. Indeed, it is spelt out in the White Paper this time. I think we have seen in recent air operations the capabilities which the Soviets or their allies enjoy. The 1968 Czechoslovakian operation was the one I quoted last year. I think we must also bear in mind the rapidity of the advance of the Indian Army in East Pakistan in 1971, which could not have been achieved without, first, air superiority and,


secondly, the great tactical mobility which it enjoyed through its use of air power, particularly helicopters.
Today, I want to be more domestic and more particular. First, I want to refer to training, which is at the foundation of the fighting effectiveness of any service. That is particularly true of the Royal Air Force. At a time of rationalisation and very close scrutiny of expenditure, it is right that training should be thoroughly examined and that we should try to get as much of our fighting forces into the front line as possible.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of training policy which bear further examination. First, there is the question of flying training. It seems exceedingly strange, at a time when the Select Committee on Expenditure has exhorted us to rationalise the functions of all three Services, that flying training should not have been as thoroughly rationalised as it might have been. The area most obvious to hon. Members in this respect is that of rotary wing flying training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) and I were privileged recently to visit the Army Aviation Centre at Middle Wallop and could not fail to notice the fact that the Royal Navy, the Army Air Corps and the Royal Air Force had different training establishments for helicopter pilots. I cannot believe that this makes sense, at least in the basic stage of training. In tactical and operational training, it may make sense to have different establishments according to the particular rôle of the helicopter pilot or crewman, but that cannot make sense at the earlier stages.
To be fair, one must point out that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force personnel go through the same primary flying training school at Church Fenton, near my constituency in Yorkshire. But this is not the case with the Army pilots, although they use the same primary flying training aeroplane, the Chipmunk. I urge my hon. Friend to look at this question of helicopter training again, and extremely thoroughly.
The Army goes in for flying training on a contract basis—I understand that Bristow Helicopters has a contract with the Army. But the same is not the case for the Royal Air Force at Turnhill or

for the Royal Navy at Culdrose or Portland. This aspect should be examined, especially since the aircraft concerned are common to the Services to some degree. The Lynx and the Gazelle are to be operated by both the Royal Air Force and the Army. This is a further argument for increased rationalisation.
The training of qualified flying instructors is a slightly different question. At present those for the Army and the Royal Navy are trained at the Royal Air Force Central Flying School. This is probably right and it should continue.
But, looking beyond the training side of helicopter operations, my hon. Friend will remember that the Defence Committee of the Conservative Party produced its pamphlet "In Defence of Peace" just before the White Paper. In that pamphlet, we looked to a better allocation of resources between the Army and the Royal Air Force for what I would term tactical support of the Army from the air on the battlefield. I apologise for missing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East who referred to this matter.
I think that there is a broad consensus that the rotary wing operations that are directly involved with the tactical situation on the battlefield should be under the control of the Army commander. I say that as a pure aviator and not an Army man at heart, but it makes practical sense. If a greater part of the Royal Air Force's budget which is at present devoted to the Puma force could be devoted to its main operations, like close support, interdiction, strike, reconnaissance and so on by the allocation of the Pumas to the Army Air Corps, this would be reasonable.
There is of course a great deficiency in the category of helicopters beyond that —the medium-heavy lift helicopters. These are needed both for support of the Army and for logistic support of VSTOL in the field. If VSTOL in the field is to be deployed to its full effect, it needs logistic back-up by helicopters. If one supplies VSTOL in the field in any other way, it is very clear to any reconnaissance pilot what one is up to, because the tracks are plainly evident for all to see from the air. So it is important to have a heavy lift helicopter to supply the Harrier force, and probably the Jaguar force also if it is to be operated to maximum effectiveness.
As for these helicopters, this also is a difficult argument. Part of their operation will be devoted to the Harriers, which must of course continue to be under the control of the RAF and flown by the RAF, but part of their task must be in support of the Army commander and for purely Army purposes. So I would leave this one for the staffs to work out between them, but it is something that we should seriously consider.
On the other side of flying training, when the Government came to power, they made a major decision—to reallocate the Jaguar force. A large proportion of the Jaguars were put into the front line in the form of Jaguar S's, strike variants, and the number of Jaguar B's, that is, the British trainer variants, was reduced, leaving only a small number— I think about 35—to equip the operational conversion unit at Lossiemouth. That can make very good sense and I can understand the rationale behind it, but the Government must accept that the training costs for pilots at the operational conversion units for high performance aircraft will be necessarily increased as a result of this decision.
That is not necessarily a bad thing if the replacement aircraft in the applied/advanced training rôle, the HSII82 is used to its maximum effect; this can be done only if the weapon capability of this aircraft is utilised by the Royal Air Force. It was the experience of the Israeli Air Force in 1967, when it gained air superiority on the Jordanian front, that it could use its jet trainers, its Magisters, very well against tanks in a passive air environment. Therefore, I would urge my hon. Friend not just to build into these HS1182's a weapon capability but also to train the crews to use their weapons and to make this fundamental.
The plan for the Royal Air Force at present, I believe, is to have this option, but not to exercise it, whereas for the export variants of the aeroplane, of course, it is this option that particularly interests the customer. This is very valuable, because I remember that my hon. Friend, in perhaps his first speech from the Dispatch Box, hypothesised about the importance of maintaining a sufficient quantity of aeroplanes in the RAF's front line and not just to concentrate on quality

or sophistication of equipment. If he is to carry this philosophy through, I suggest that this is the way to do it.
Something which needs bearing in mind is the fact that when we are looking at applied/advanced training, we should remember that the Royal Navy, in the concluding days of the old-style Fleet Air Arm, used to train its fixed-wing pilots in a system which incorporated on one base what the Royal Air Force does separately—that is, that the Royal Naval Air Station at Brawdy with Hunters, used to do what the Royal Air Force did separately at the Advanced Flying Training School at Valley and the tactical weapons unit 229TWU at Chivenor in Devon.
It would again make sense to deploy on one base an aeroplane which, after the Gnat and the Hunter, will be the HSII82 operating in two rôles—in the pure rôle of advanced flying training and for the more applied practical tactical rôle of weaponry and learning to fly an aeroplane tactically as a pilot might need to do in an operational squadron.
If my hon. Friend is looking for economies and rationalisations, might it not make sense, after the TWU has been moved from Chivenor to Brawdy, to see whether it is right and reasonable to maintain Brawdy in service as a pure TWU and No. 4 AFS at Valley as a pure flying training school. There should be rational economies to be made by combining the two. It would be a large base, I realise, but the difficulties could be overcome.
Looking at the ground training side on its own, of course, as a Trenchardian in upbringing, I was very interested in my hon. Friend's remarks about Halton. The Trenchard concept was to create a small nucleus of highly-trained, extremely dedicated men, both in the officer cadre and among the other ranks, upon which the Service could build in time of war.
It was Trenchard's belief that these men had to undergo a thorough and lengthy period of training in a Service environment. It may be that the educational system, both in school and in university, has overtaken this concept, both as regards others ranks, for the apprentice entry to Halton, and as regards officers, for what used to be the officer


cadet entry to Cranwell, but still, fundamentally, it is my philosophic belief that were the Royal Air Force to be used practically and realistically in time of war, there would still be a requirement for young men, whether in the ranks or in the officer structure, who were totally committed to the Service way of life, who lived, drank, ate, slept and breathed the Service, who were enthused by it, its traditions and everything that went with it. We must be very careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water in these reforms.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be careful to be certain that we are not doing so. We are a small nation. We are a nation that is increasingly imperilled by potential enemies. In recent conflicts— the Arab-Israeli one in 1967, for instance —one saw a small, highly trained and dedicated Air Force able to wreak losses far outweighing its numbers. In 1971, on the Western Front, the Pakistani Air Force, outclassed both in numbers and in matériel, was able more than to hold its own against a superior adversary. It was able to do so not because of the sophistication of its equipment but by the élan and discipline of its formations. I still believe that the same is true today, so I will listen with interest to what further my hon. Friend has to say about Halton.
Looking to further rationalisation, my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East quite rightly touched on the question of the strategic air transport force and in particular the trooping element. The Expenditure Committee looked into this subject at the end of the 1960s, but I regret I have not had time to look at its findings. However, I believe that the present situation is different in that we have neither the panoply of a post-imperial posture nor the power and financial resources to match it. I therefore believe it inappropriate that we should retain a very substantial strategic air trooping force which was much more geared to a global commitment than to the realities of a Eurocentric strategy.
There will be arguments in the Air Staff, and in other places, attempting to dissuade my hon. Friend from conducting a review into this aspect. I understand quite clearly that there is a need for tactical transportation. The Hercules

force would obviously remain indispensable and its successors will continue to have a rôle to fulfil. Likewise on balance there is probably a rôle for a strategic freighter of the class of the Belfast. It may ultimately have to be replaced by something like the C5 Galaxy, but that is for the future. None the less, freighters able to carry equipment as well as paratroopers over long ranges will be required and so will tactical freighters.
The pure trooping requirement however, is something which might well be met by contract to civil airlines. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this, especially as it affects the women, children and dependants of Service personnel. There is no raison d'ê tre for a very substantial part of what was air support command and now forms the air transport group of Royal Air Force Strike Command.
Looking again to recent experience, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Pakistanis were able to reinforce East Pakistan by some two to three divisions over a greater distance than the Atlantic. They did that, circumnavigating the Indian sub-continent, by putting into service PIA's 707s. It is not unrealistic to expect ourselves to be able to do the same in an emergency. If we did so, I believe we could afford more for the front line.
In our circumstances, for further savings to augment the front line capability of the Service, it is essential that we look at the maintenance units. I am aware a study has been undertaken of the costs of third-line servicing between the maintenance units and the British aircraft industry.
The argument is always advanced by the Air Staff that industrial disputes and other kinds of unrest and upset can disrupt third-line servicing in the aircraft industries. But it is a fact of life that the British aircraft industry badly needs work.
The Conservative Party, believing, as it does, in industry, should do its best to support its own industries, particularly in this strategic sector. I am also aware that there have been industrial disputes in maintenance units, so the old argument that maintenance units were somehow sacrosanct is of course not valid, particularly as a great proportion of their


personnel is Service personnel. According to my information, it would be some 15 per cent. cheaper to do the third-line servicing in industry.
I also ask my hon. Friend to look at whether the concept of centralised servising is entirely right for the front-line squadrons. I suggest it may be only very marginally preferable on economic grounds. I am here in a sense arguing against myself. But I know—and I think my hon. Friend knows, the Air Staff realises and air commanders fully understand—that squadron servicing is still very important for morale. It enables the formation commander to have aircraft at his disposal much more readily than if he has to try to dig them out of some centralised pool which is often administered very bureaucratically. I commend these thoughts to my hon. Friend.
I conclude with a few obiter dicta. It is important to have an airborne early-warning system in service for the Royal Air Force not merely, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) realises, to replace the Gannets of the Fleet Air Arm, but also to guard against the low-level threat. I am delighted to hear of the construction of the airborne early warning radar in the Outer Hebrides which is essential in this respect. Nonetheless, other countries facing less of a low level threat than we do maintain this capability. If our MRCAs and other interceptors of the 1970s are to continue to be able to operate effectively, they will need sufficient airborne early warning against the low-level theat. My hon. Friend mentioned the Bulldogs for the University air squadrons. He will realise they are a very small proportion of the Royal Air Force's primary flying training task. What will happen to replace the Chipmunks of the primary training school at Church Fenton? Will they be totally resparred and refurbished like the Chipmunks at the Army Aviation Centre at Middle Wallop at almost the cost of a new Bulldog, or what will happen? We should know about this because it is also important to realise what will replace the Chipmunks in the air experience flights which are extremely useful to introduce young men to the Service and which currently fulfil this very valuable task.
My hon. Friend said that the Jaguar S is coming into squadron service at the

beginning of next year. Can he tell us where they will come into service? Will they replace the Phantom FGR2s in the Royal Air Force Germany and Second Allied Tactical Air Force, thus releasing those Phantoms for the air defence rôle at home, or will they go into 38 Group? This is a question of interest and does not, I believe, involve any classified information.
I must join with the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) on the subject of MRCA. This aeroplane is fundamental to the re-equipment programme of the Royal Air Force. I do not believe there has ever been a time since the Second World War when the Royal Air Force has been so totally dependent on one aircraft. The TSR2 was very important in the mid-60s, but was not called on to fulfil the same multipicity of rôles as the MRCA. It could therefore be that our partners may come to show less interest in it than they did in the past and they may want fewer. Various political events may occur calling for a cut in Government expenditure.
As to the Royal Air Force, however, it must get this aircraft and get it in numbers. I should say that those interested in air power would categorically believe that the MRCA and the naval variant of the Harrier must not be mutually incompatible. The question of rationalisation must therefore be very thoroughly pursued.
My hon. Friend said that by the end of the decade he hoped to have saved some £80 million by his very worthy and most laudable rationalisation of the material and support structure in the Royal Air Force. If it is £80 million by 1980, I suggest it probably equals the cost of one extra MRCA squadron plus reserve aeroplanes to fill the gaps caused by attrition and the support costs of that squadron. In numerical terms I do not believe this magnificent saving will amount to very much more unless we reform our whole manpower policies very drastically.
I know I have gone on about this ad infinitum and that it bores my hon. Friends, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Air Staff even more, but I am convinced—and I made my maiden speech on this and possibly I will make my last on it—that this change in the balance of


defence budget between manpower costs and equipment costs will not be favourably affected unless we move over much more to the concept of a citizen force. Never have armed forces been so much concentrated in the United Kingdom. Yet it is vital that we rid ourselves of post-imperial postures and try to cut down the clutter of bases, to rationalise support functions and to make our Services more dependent on the civilian economy.
If they are to be deployed in the United Kingdom let us get the civilian economy—whether for social welfare, for education, for housing, for chaplaincy, and so on—to bear these burdens much more and let us look realistically and positively at the rôle that the well-intentioned, enthusiastic, intelligent, well-trained reserves can play.
The Army is doing it, and we went into the election pledged to expand the Territorial Army. Why should this commitment be held to exclude the Royal Navy and the Air Force? It does not in other countries such as in the United States, South Africa and Israel. The Israeli's have proved themselves to have an effective air force and to be capable, like the Swiss, of flying supersonic aircraft.
I suggest, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester was hinting, that there is a civil rôle that Service manpower can perhaps play in air-sea rescue. But there is a rôle in support of the civil community which reserves can also play in air-sea rescue for those areas where there are not too many flying training tasks but where yachtsmen and other navigators occasionally get into difficulty, such rôles as casualty evacuation, searches, communications and perhaps even primary flying training. This reserve should be for all three flying Services.
If the Navy actually ever goes to war —and that is something which no defence planner ever seems to envisage—it will need replacements for the helicopter pilots as well as for fixed-wing pilots. The Army will have a tremendous attrition of helicopter pilots if the Vietnam war is anything to go by. The Royal Air Force cannot be totally committed to the concept of a three- or four-day war. No one knows how long the next

war will last. It might last three or four days or three or four years. It might be nuclear or it might be conventional. The Royal Air Force is at least realising the conventional threat and is planning to meet the danger of incursions by the low-level manned bomber.
Let us therefore be positive and have some new thinking. Let us not just keep mollycoddling ourselves about our magnificent professionalism and our ever-shrinking force of highly-trained men located in more and more isolated bases in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, totally divorced from the civilian community, more and more self-adulatory and totally neglecting that great wealth of trained, experienced, enthusiastic manpower in industry and in the professions, young people who would like to give some kind of community service but who in the past have been neglected.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those of us who have had the privilege to visit Royal Air Force stations do not think that they are so isolated in Lincolnshire or anywhere else. The truth about the RAF is probably that it has increasing contact with the rest of us and that is something to be welcomed in the Services.
One of our troubles with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), whether post-Trenchardian, neo-Trenchardian or whatever it is, is that since Lord Trenchard's time the reality of the situation has changed considerably. It may or may not have been viable in his time to train pilots quickly, but the reality is today that it is palpably absurd to talk of any kind of: "citizen RAF" at a time when it costs £90,000 to train a pilot on many kinds of aircraft, rather more on a helicopter and, I think, about £300,000 for an MRCA. This is the reality of the situation. I do not complain about it. All I say is that these facts are rather awkward for the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bradford, West.

Mr. Wilkinson: I did not advocate the training of MRCA pilots. I said that there was a nucleus of highly-trained people, perhaps airline pilots and others with skills built up over a number of years which are not now being fully utilised. These skills could be used in a


supplementary and auxiliary rôle with no great sophistication and at very little expense.

Mr. Dalyell: The phrase that stuck in my mind was "citizen RAF".
I now turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I thought he asked rather artlessly some extremely interesting questions. I hope that the Minister of State will find an opportunity to answer those questions which concerned the rôle of the RAF and the forces in the Indian Ocean. I am not here to talk party politics at any great length but one can imagine the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member when he reflects on all those things that the Conservative Party said in criticism of my party between 1966 and 1969 when we were in government. I would have thought that the decencies of life would require not an apology, because that is difficult in politics, but some serious explanation sometime by a senior member of the Government as to why so much of their thinking has changed. We have never been told why they changed their mind on a number of vital issues.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). I had the good fortune to visit the RAF at St. Mawgan and I thought he might have said that in Cornwall—as a visitor I cannot speak with any authority about Cornwall—the RAF there as elsewhere had gone to great trouble to integrate with and help the local population. It is all very well to have a lot of complaints, but my impression of the RAF from visits I have made is that it does its best to keep in touch with the local population.

Mr. Hicks: Perhaps the hon. Member will recall that my remarks were prefaced in two ways. I acknowledged the rôle that the RAF was playing both in a military sense and for the local community. This would certainly cover all the aspects he has raised.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course I accept that, because the important point is that the personnel at these stations go to some trouble to integrate themselves with the local community and those in the Ministry of Defence and senior officers of the RAF demand credit for this.
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). I was far from persuaded about the case for what he called a "single national security force". I do not understand why it should be that the Harrier should be allotted to an Army Air Corps. However, I thought that what he said about the VC10, if there is to be a VC10 production line, was worth listening to. I hope that in the winding-up speech there will be some comment, because if there is to be an order from China or elsewhere and rejigging and retooling for the production of the VC10 is to go ahead, the hon. Member's suggestion would appear sensible.
The hon. Member also mentioned a bone of contention, and this is the maritime Harrier. We understand that there are difficulties in the uprating of the Pegasus 15 engine but those of us who have been on "Ark Royal" remember that it is now five years since the introduction of the maritime Harrier was discussed. We remember the right hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) when he was at the Ministry of Defence soon after the Government came to power going on board the "Ark Royal" and discussing the matter. Why has it taken so long to introduce some kind of maritime Harrier into service? We deserve to know what the problem is.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East about housing and the difficulty of RAF personnel returning from Cyprus and elsewhere. I hope that the Service Department will do what it can, not only with local authorities but with new towns. I know that there are a number of new towns that are well disposed towards ex-Service-men. Perhaps more could be done in that direction to make housing available at a reasonable cost.
The starred mechanics scheme was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in the autumn of 1969. Anybody who has visited RAF establishments must be impressed by the RAF's standard of technical education and the standard of the other Services. That is one of the most impressive things about the British Services nowadays. When it comes to courses to create fitters of a highly skilled nature, the British Services have a credible record.
I am sure that some hon. Members would like to be further persuaded that it is sensible to upset the starred mechanics scheme, which has worked well. The school leaving age has been raised. Why cannot there be entry at 16? As I understand it, the Services are now thinking in terms of adult entry. Donaldson never said that as far as I know.
What is the objection to continuing the starred mechanics scheme and the various other apprenticeship schemes which have a good record? Why has there to be a change from a system that has worked well?
I was glad to hear that the officer redundancy scheme had balanced out, that about 500 wanted to go and that 500 accepted the various resettlement courses. That is good. The top-heavy balance of the problems of NCOs is a cause of great concern. It is the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and myself, and the view of many of my hon. Friends—our view has been gained after we have spoken to RAF personnel—that the age structure of NCOs is top-heavy. That is a problem to which there is no easy answer.
Last year the question of language training was raised. If our forces are to be integrated with those of NATO it is essential that all the highly-skilled personnel of the RAF have at least some working knowledge of French and also German and Italian. Last year there was an undertaking that this matter would be considered seriously. What has been done during the last year? The purpose of these debates is to progress-chase various undertakings that are given by Government Ministers.
I understood the Under-Secretary of State to say that in Training Command there would until 1980 be a saving of £80 million. That was the claim which he made. How has that figure been arrived at? It is a bit rash to say such a thing about something as expensive as training when costs are escalating at an almost exponential rate.

Lord Lambton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said quite plainly that as a result of there being 6,000 fewer positions in the next eight years there will be a saving of £80 million.

Mr. Dalyell: That is an attractive notional calculation. However, I should have grave misgivings about that kind of figure. Although personnel costs may be less—perhaps it is not necessary to refer to the introduction of the Jetstream and Bulldog instead of the Chipmunk—there is the real problem of the likely rise in the cost of aviation fuel.

Lord Lambton: The hon. Gentleman is not understanding me. I am saying that as a result of a reduction in the number of men who would otherwise be engaged and paid in the Royal Air Force, there will be a saving. That has nothing whatever to do with fuel.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a very easy calculation to make. It is very easy to say "Because we have 6,000 fewer personnel, there will be a saving of £80 million." The Government should be careful about promising savings of that kind at a time when we know that pay will go up—at least I hope it will, because I believe in the concept of the military salary—that the cost of training will inevitably rise and that the Government will also be faced with rising fuel costs, which are extremely important.

Lord Lambton: Lord Lambton indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to the oil companies.

Lord Lambton: The hon. Gentleman must understand that to have 6,000 fewer personnel will make a saving.

Mr. Dalyell: That would result only if there were less flying hours in more sophisticated aircraft. There is a real argument which the Government Front Bench must understand. If we are to have a proper system of training and flying hours are not to be reduced, there will be costs. I do not believe that the situation will be reached when there will be a saving of £80 million. The cost of aero-fuel will be important. The cost of fuel will rise and that has to be taken into account in the calculation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pridd (Mr. John) referred to the MRCA. Is it true that there is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the Germans on the operational requirements of the MRCA? To be specific, is it true that the Germans want an MRCA which carries less fuel? Of course the Germans


are nearer the location of any eventuality. We are insisting that the MRCA should be standardised and should carry rather more fuel than the Germans require.
I need not repeat the points that were put forward so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd about unit costs, except to say that I do not understand, and I have not understood for some time, why successive Governments must be so coy about giving details of costs. What is the difficulty? Even people who are committed to the MRCA, like Mr. Ollie Heath, with whom I had a long discussion in the autumn, wonder whether British Governments have to be so reticent about giving costs.
We have our suspicions. Originally £1·7 million was the figure calculated for the MRCA. That calculation was made on the basis of roughly 1,000 units. The situation has altered. As I understand it, the requirement for the MRCA is not greatly more than 430 for us and the Germans. If I am very wrong about that the Government should say so.
The situation has been transformed since the original cost calculations were made. My hon. Friend suggested that if we are to be serious about defence expenditure a decision will have to be made at some stage about all the highly expensive projects which will mature at the same time. The MRCA project will mature in the late 1970s, as will the through-deck cruiser and Sea Wolf projects and a number of others, not least the Harrier. Defence expenditure in the late 1970s, if all these projects mature at the same time, will get out of hand.
I have one other specific question. Is it really necessary at this stage in the MRCA project to have separate flight test centres? I would have thought that this was one area where national prerogatives have turned out to be more important than relative economic efficiency. Cannot we settle on one flight test centre for the MRCA at this stage and not be too unrealistic about it? If the Minister talks in terms of collaboration, it is extremely unsatisfactory that we are unable to settle on one flight test centre.
In this context we ought also to reflect why it is that in the production of aircraft, whether we like it or not, the most

successful country has been not the United States, ourselves or the Germans but France. Any objective man must see that. We ought to examine why the French have been successful. I pass on the opinion of a man who knows far more about it than I do, David Packard, the former United States Under-Secretary of State for Defence. When he was in London he explained to me that the French have a system of going to the prototype stage. Once they have reached that stage, as they did with the Dassault Mirage, at a cost of perhaps 50 million dollars, they then make up their mind on precisely what they want and the production run goes on from there. It may well be that we have a great deal to learn from France, albeit she has been less co-operative than she might have been over NATO and some kind of common European arms policy. I would say that we have something to learn in the way that she has carried out her procurement and ordering.
I come now to Jaguar. What is the operational requirement for these extra Jaguars at Lossiemouth? It is all very well saying that we are to have an extra four squadrons of Nimrods and an extra squadron of Jaguars but I want to be convinced that there is an operational requirement. Maybe it is right. We did not learn from the Minister why the Government have changed their mind and why it is felt that these extra aircraft are necessary. It was not demonstrated what was the operational requirement. If we are to be serious about defence we should have an answer to these questions. Maybe there is an answer. We deserve to have it.

Lord Lambton: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a simple answer to this. As I said in my speech, when we came to power we realised that compared with the forces opposing us we had too few aircraft. Therefore it was absolutely necessary for us to have more aircraft, effectively to meet the threat.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that we had too few aircraft. That is a serious thing to say. This is a matter of some dispute between the parties. This is not a very cosy occasion—at least, it is not turning out to be. To make that charge against my right hon. Friend the


Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others who had responsibility is a serious thing for the Government to say and we would like to reflect upon it.
Why is it that the Linesman and Exocet projects have gone on and on? I understand that the Linesman/Mediator system is something like five years behind schedule. Exocet may be all right as a system but why do we first of all have to buy from abroad without, as far as I understand, much consultation with industry, under either Government? We must be candid about that. It was certainly the understanding when my right hon. Friends left office that Exocet would be completed and in operation far earlier than has turned out to be the case. This is the kind of thing to which the Minister should give his mind. It is all very well saying that the Government do not want to give details in the House. These are matters involving millions of pounds. They are of great importance to British industry. I would be far happier if I thought that the Minister was progress-chasing each of these difficult projects.
The Minister said that in his winding-up speech he would concern himself with peripheral subjects. I want to choose one subject which has been exercising the minds of more and more of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is the whole question of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. This is neither the occasion nor the place to go into the merits or demerits of what a British Prime Minister ought or ought not to say to a French President. I ask in passing: if a British Prime Minister cannot influence a French President about this, what on earth can he influence him on?
The immediate question is one of technique. I want to know how it is that the radiation testing team at Pitcairn Island, which I believe is the responsibility of the Royal Air Force, can be so certain that there are no radiological hazards. If we are so certain that there are no such hazards, why, when Mr. Gough Whitlam the Australian Prime Minister comes to Britain, cannot we get some agreement that this testing will take place for example in the Atlantic? I am fairly clear about why the French do not want it in the Atlantic or the Bay of Biscay or anywhere else. The Government should be warned that when the Australian Prime Minister comes here he will ask some

extremely tough questions about why this testing should take place in the Pacific.
I gather that it is an RAF responsibility. If we are so certain that there are no radiological hazards attached to the testing of nuclear weapons, why does not this take place in Atlantic European waters rather than in the Pacific? Why should the Australians and the Pacific islanders have to put up with this if we are so certain that there are no radiological hazards?

7.36 p.m.

Lord Lambton: By leave of the House, I will seek to reply to some of the points that have been made. There have been very few speakers in the debate but that has been made up for by the number of questions that I have been asked. I have been bombarded by questions, including some from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) which I could not possibly be expected to answer since they are not really the concern of my Department. I must say in passing that as far as I know this is the first debate that there has ever been when there has been no speaker from the Labour side of the House except for the Front Bench speakers.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), the right hon. Member for Aber-avon (Mr. John Morris) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) asked me to say something more about the MRCA. The House will realise that I am in a certain difficulty here. It is not possible to go into great detail over a project in which we are associated with two other countries. It is not possible to make off-the-cuff statements in the House without consultation with them. I would like to go through the history of the MRCA up to the present moment, which is as far as I can go.
There is no doubt, as hon. Members have said, that the MRCA remains the major future aircraft of the RAF upon which we shall be very largely dependent in the late 1970s when it is to fulfil so many rôles. Hon. Members know that it will operate in the strike, reconnaissance and air-defence rôles and that it will be the main plane for the RAF in the 1980s.
Further decisions on production numbers are not yet necessary. The numbers


to be taken up are a matter tor decision by each of the parties concerned. Perhaps it will give some relief to the hon. Member for West Lothian if I say that the United Kingdom is still planning to take between 350 and 400. Development costs have so far been kept within the planned provision and no increase is necessary at present.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the United Kingdom taking the largest number of the aircraft that are to be made?

Lord Lambton: The probability is that we shall.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: What will be the effect of the dramatic change in the exchange rate of the £ sterling and the Deutschemark on the cost of this aircraft?

Lord Lambton: My hon. Friend asked me that question recently, and I am still trying to work it out. It is immensely complicated because of the floating exchange rate. I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as this complicated sum is finished, but I cannot promise that it will be accurate on the next day if the exchange rate varies.
We shall be taking between 300 and 400 of these aircraft. Development costs have so far been kept within planned provisions. No increase is necessary at this stage. It is too early to form a view of the likely unit costs when production decisions have still to be made. The project is of great importance to three major countries. We are determined to maintain a viable programme within the capacity of the three partner Governments and to bring the idea to a successful conclusion.
International collaboration and the sharing of costs which is achieved are the key to the economical development and production of the aircraft. This kind of collaboration should be encouraged in Europe, because many of the advantages which Russia gets from standardisation are lacking among our allies in Europe. Particular attention is being paid to cost control and good management.
There is regular and frequent contact at all levels between Governments and industry, and effective joint machinery is being set up to ensure economical and

efficient direction of the project and the achievement of the right decisions. Technological progress is satisfactory and no unexpected difficulties have arisen.
A number of Rolls-Royce RB199 engines are now running in Britain and Germany, and a completely successful demonstration of its performance at this stage of development took place at Rolls-Royce, Bristol, a few weeks ago in the presence of German, Italian and British delegates. They were satisfied with the performance of the engine. We expect the performance of the aircraft to meet the requirements of all three air forces, and both the aircraft and the timetable for its introduction to service are acceptable to all three countries.
It is gratifying that British industry has obtained a satisfactory share of the work in the advanced technological project including engine development and design leadership in the important avionics programme of the aircraft. I cannot be any more detailed on this subject. It is not possible for me to make statements for the Germans and the Italians about their plans. All I can say is that the scheme is under way.

Mr. John: I recognise that it is difficult for the Minister to say more when we are in collaboration with other countries. When this debate recurs next year, I ask him to consult his partners about the maximum amount of information that can be given so that, as so often in Defence Estimate debates, we do not have to make do witih the minimum amount of information.

Lord Lambton: My fear is that, if consultation were to take place, I should not be allowed to say as much as I have said.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked me about costs. I cannot go beyond what I have said. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the practice to divulge the cost estimates of individual projects under development. The work sharing has gone well, and we have nothing to complain of in our relationship with Germany and Italy.

Mr. Dalyell: What about flight test centres? Do we have to have more than one?

Lord Lambton: That is entirely up to the countries concerned. I cannot say that Germany or Italy should not have one. In collaborative projects it is impossible for one partner without consultation to lay down what the other partner should have.
Low-level flying has excited great interest on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is concerned about certain aspects. The House will be aware of the factors which make it necessary for us to carry on a continuing programme of low-level training, and I need not go into them in detail. The basic reason is, however, that with the improved efficiency of air defence systems of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact it is essential for attack aircraft to be able to undertake their mission as close as possible to the ground. This in turn means that the special techniques required must be constantly practised.
As the House knows, we have lost many overseas training grounds and this has meant a concentration of aircraft in this country. Except for aircraft which have maritime tasks, this training must be done over land if it is to be of value. RAF Germany squadrons carry out their training on the Continent. It is unrealistic to think that NATO countries would be prepared to extend similar facilities to United Kingdom based aircraft unless we gave them reciprocal rights in this country. At the same time, we have to maintain our combat aircraft in a high state of readiness and this limits the possibility of making use of training facilities outside Europe. In short, it is inevitable that a large proportion of our low-level training must be undertaken over the United Kingdom. The Conservative Government have found this, and the Labour Government found exactly the same.
Given this requirement, it has been the policy of both the present and the previous Governments to do everything possible to limit the disturbance to the public to the absolute minimum. In pursuance of this aim, low-level training is confined to those parts of the country which are least densely populated. Special rules have been laid down to ensure that urban areas are avoided in low-flying activities, and both minimum height and maximum speed limitations are laid down. The whole pattern of low-level flying is kept under continuous review, and, when it can be done without detriment to our

essential operational requirements, we make changes in the interests of reducing disturbance. Without wishing to sound complacent, I am satisfied that in this way we have done a certain amount to cushion the impact of low-level flying on the population at large. In 1972, for example, when more than 140,000 movements were recorded, the number of complaints received by the Department amounted to just over 1,000.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred specifically to low flying over Wales. As I have said before, a little over 9 per cent. of all low-level flights by military aircraft take place over Wales. As Wales accounts for approximately 9 per cent. of the land acreage of Great Britain, it is fair to say that it does not have to bear an undue proportion of this burden. Although the number of flights the hon. Gentleman quoted may appear to be considerable, it must be borne in mind that they are spread out over a wide area of rural Wales. It is a reflection on the steps we take to minimise the problem that the number of complaints which we have received from Wales dropped substantially in 1972. In 1971, we had 172 complaints. In 1972 we had 115.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon has been in correspondence with me about low flying in the vicinity of Cefn Cribbwr. He will know from his ministerial experience how essential is low-level training to the operational effectiveness of our squadrons. As I have explained to him, aircraft in transit between Exmoor and the mid-Wales region—both highly suitable areas for low-level training—must inevitably pass over the South Wales coastal plain. Since this plain is well-populated, there is no possibility of selecting a route which completely avoids inhabited areas. However the present flight paths have been selected as carefully as possible so that as few people as possible are affected.
If we were to make changes so as to avoid the village of Cefn Cribbwr, the aircraft would have to over-fly larger centres of population. I was sorry to hear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents had suggested that pilots did not always observe the new rule requiring them to climb to a height of at least 1,000 feet before passing over the village. We are taking steps to


remind those concerned about the existence of this rule. But as I have said already, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman's constituents could let the Department have as much detailed information as possible about any future flights that they consider to be in breach of this regulation.
I now deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. I do not think that it would help potential house purchasers if we were to publish maps showing where over-flying was likely to take place. As for noise disturbance, it is not simply a matter of the area but of the frequency and intensity of flights and the types of aircraft involved. In any event, we keep the pattern of low-level flying under continual review. Published maps could quickly become misleading and might possibly cause more harm than good. This continuing review takes account of major changes in the population pattern including the large-scale expansion of towns. The rules governing low-flying training may be adjusted accordingly.
Caradon Hill is situated in an area where authorised low-level training takes place regularly. In general it is a relatively sparsely populated area. In the standing instructions, the television mast on Caradon Hill is designated a hazard and pilots are warned to keep well clear. I have already said something about the rules that we lay down for low-level flying. I shall be writing to my hon. Friend to explain them in more detail.
I deal with only two more points in this context, therefore. In the first place, pilots are strictly forbidden to fly at less than 250 feet about ground level. Secondly, low flying is permitted only in good visibility. Visibility has to be at least three nautical miles. If weather conditions deteriorate after the announcement of a flight, the pilot is required to abandon that part of the sortie scheduled to take place at low level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin also expressed concern about the flight safety aspects of low-level training following the recent Hunter crash in his constituency at Caradon Hill. I understand fully his anxiety for his constituents and I appreciate the interest that he has taken. But I stress that stringent precautions are taken to make everything

as safe as possible not only for crews but in the interests of the general public.
I also say in defence of the training that on no occasion has any civilian been killed or injured as a result of any accident occurring since the beginning of 1970. In the light of those facts and bearing in mind that no air force in the world has a better flight safety record, I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will view the accident in its proper perspective. It is too early for me to speculate on the outcome of the investigation of the crash and it would be improper for me to do so. But I assure my hon. Friend that it is being conducted with all the thoroughness customary on these occasions. If there are any lessons to be learned, they will be learned.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend may be aware that I have the same problem of low flying from the Army Air Corps base at Middle Wallop in my constituency. If the RAF operates the same system as the Army Air Corps, I can assure hon. Members that the utmost is done to minimise inconvenience to the public.

Lord Lambton: I come now to the problems of the Harrier, to which the hon. Member for Pontypridd referred. Here again one is limited in what one can say. I was asked about sales prospects and about the countries to which we were selling them. Anyone who has ever sold anything knows that the very last thing to do is to announce that a specific country intends to buy it. Inevitably this is an area over which a veil of secrecy must be drawn. Hon. Members cannot expect me to say that such-and-such a country is interested in it. If I were to do that, the Government of that country might be extremely embarrassed to see an item in tomorrow's newspapers about it.

Mr. John: Secrecy or no, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the prospects are good, bad or indifferent?

Lord Lambton: I hope that sales will be made, but I cannot honestly go any further. It is impossible for me to say that sales will be made. One cannot know what is in the minds of other governments. Even less can one know what eventualities may occur.

Mr. Wilkinson: I realise fully that this is a very sensitive area. But is my hon.


Friend in a position to say when we are likely to have an air attache in Berne, which we have not had in the past few years? Do not we need someone there who is qualified to facilitate sales since the whole question of a replacement aircraft for the Venoms is wide open and the Swiss Government have bought Hunters only as an interim measure?

Lord Lambton: Certainly I shall consider every suggestion which is likely to help our sales. I can only repeat that the Harrier is a very good aeroplane. I think that that is agreed on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members will know that we are taking an additional 15. They will keep our front line going for a longer period than we thought at one time. Engines for the additional Harriers will be supplied from RAF resources. It is difficult to forecast engine requirements. Therefore forecasts are reviewed regularly. In the light of current forecasts of overhaul and turnround time, it is not thought necessary to buy additional engines for the new aircraft.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to another matter in connection with the Harrier when he raised the question of simulators in Germany. The simulator is now in Germany where it is working effectively. The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point. They are of great value. The use of simulators in training is one of the most advantageous and economic turns to have been taken in the past few years.
I was also asked about the shelter programme in Germany. This is very important. Unfortunately, the start of this programme has been delayed not because of any fault on our part but because of the need to secure NATO approval. A start should be made later this year. Once it has been made, I hope that the whole programme will be completed quickly, though hon. Members will understand that there are major works services involved which cannot be completed overnight.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked me about married accommodation in Germany. I am glad to inform him that the Government have approved a programme under which every RAF officer and airman in RAF Germany who is

entitled to married accommodation will be provided with such accommodation by the end of 1975. This includes a total of 1,565 houses and flats which will be constructed by German contractors to meet RAF requirements. Over 450 have already been completed and an additional 760 should be completed in the next 12 to 18 months.
This means that, although there has been considerable discomfort there, we are approaching the task with a determination to overcome it. There have been particular difficulties about the ownership of the houses, and so on, in Germany, which has not made it an easy task. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Government they found it no easy task. We are carrying on from where they left off. This is not a matter out of which I want to make political capital of any kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walt-hamstow, East and the hon. Member for West Lothian spoke of the difficulties of Service men finding houses when they retire. This is one of the most considerable problems facing Service men today, because the value of houses has gone up to an alarming degree in the last 20 or 30 months. Therefore, men on fixed salaries who have been in the Services for 15 or 20 years find themselves in an extremely awkward position. There is no simple answer to the problem.
Our Resettlement Service advisers are approaching the problem as best they can. They hope that well before retirement date officers will be encouraged to look around. Terminal benefits, including lump sums large enough to give material assistance with house purchase, do not entirely meet the problem. Special schemes have been arranged with building societies—for example, the RAF Mortgage Savings Scheme. Most local housing authorities respond as best they can to Government circulars which ask them to treat ex-Service men as special cases. We shall continue to do everything we can to help them, but this is a social problem which is not easily solved.
Mention was made of RAF NCOs who, after 16 years' service, would like to remain in the Air Force and whether they might be given pensions if that is not possible. Under present regulations 22 years' service is required for pension. The whole subject of pensions is under


review. It is too early to make any forecast of the outcome. The complaint is that men are not allowed to complete 22 years and thus qualify for pension. We are looking into the whole question of airmen's future careers, but hitherto we have had to apply a quota for 22-year and longer engagements. Otherwise the age and rank structure would become unbalanced. All airmen now serving have known from the time they joined that they have no right to a pension under the present scheme.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North asked about the position of foreign cadets serving in this country. We are training at RAF air and ground schools a total of about 1,200 students a year. They come to us from the air forces of well over 40 countries, and they have been on the increase for some years. This is a tribute to the high regard in which the RAF is held. Indeed, we are hard pressed to make training places available to all who would like them ranging from aircraft engineering to advanced flying training on the latest types of aircraft in current service.
I should like to look more deeply into the question of payment, which is a comparatively complicated subject, and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend about it.
The suggestion was made that I had said we were hoping to save a large sum of money in training. What I said was:
I should like to assure right hon. and hon Members that in addition to these organisational changes, a radical—and I repeat ' radical'—review of all RAF establishments and practices is under way. Already, some 6,000 RAF posts are being saved and further savings will result from studies now in various stages of completion. The results of these efforts—aimed, as I said earlier, at reforming the structure of the Royal Air Force and the manning position, both of which had in places remained almost unchanged since 1948—should be to save more than £80 million in personnel costs by 1980.
I hope that this makes it finally clear, though I cannot see that there was much difficulty in understanding it from the beginning.
I was also asked about the disappearance of apprentices and what would happen under the new schemes. Schemes for training mechanics will hardly be affected. The principal effect will be that, instead

of recruiting boys for long periods of training, including completion of their education, we shall be recruiting rather older boys and completing their training in a shorter period by concentrating on professional skills. There will be no more apprentice mechanics, but other schemes of mechanic training will continue.
This brings me to the question of Halton. As part of the overall review of the RAF's training requirements, which is being conducted as part of our continuing search for economies, we are studying the possibilities of rationalising the various aspects of ground engineering and mechanical training at a number of establishments, including St. Athan, Halton and Cosford. I am not yet in a position to forecast the outcome of the study or to say what will be the future training role at RAF Halton, but it will remain as a technical ground training establishment.
A plea was made for the continuation of the Trenchard concept—that there should be a small elite of officers and a somewhat larger elite of men trained at Halton. Cranwell was not getting the right type of cadet and the direct entry scheme has made it possible to get a better type of cadet who has the opportunity of a university education and can complete his training at Cranwell. The same will apply to a certain degree at Halton. I do not believe that we should get such good boys by tying them up as apprentices—a name which is slightly detrimental nowadays to young men who are looking for a career. The present scheme is likely to work better even though it has not the idealism of the previous scheme, which could not stand up to modern conditions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, who always flies the Naval flag with such spirit, spoke about search and rescue. The House should know that the search and rescue units establish regular working relationships with the RNLI and other authorities concerned with marine safety and with local communities. Many requests are met for talks on ways in which members of the public can assist by taking sensible safety precautions themselves. The scheme is working comparatively well.
Another interesting point that arose in the debate concerned the position of


the VCl0s and our Transport Force. The Transport Force, particularly its strategic element, represents a large capital investment of £222 million. There is still a very long life ahead for the VCl0s and the Britannias are expected to last for several more years yet.
We have made a study of the size and composition of the transport forces, taking into considering the aircraft we have. We are also examining comparative economies in meeting the Services' needs over the next decade in terms of air movements and in terms of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy in respect of RAF transport aircraft and civil air line charters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West spoke in support of the fact that it was possible to use commercial airlines by arguing that Pakistan did so. I must say that it hardly seemed to have been successful in that case. That war must have been over before they got there. This is a matter which needs serious consideration now that the lines have been so greatly reduced. An interesting point was raised about whether we should go over to commercial flights. I would ask the House to wait until the inquiry is completed. There are strategic aspects involved, and the Royal Air Force is not the only Service which has a voice in what is happening.
I wish to say a few words about the medium-lift helicopter. I do not think it could be denied that, ideally, the medium-lift helicopter would be desirable in support of the Harrier. I have said time and time again that we are constrained by the money we have to spend. Therefore, we must carefully consider which priority should take first place. Therefore, although we would not rule out possible use of the medium-lift helicopter for the future, we must consider it in relation to the other needs of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Am I right in saying that the Royal Air Force has to borrow Sikorsky helicopters for operations in certain areas? If that is the case, then, following the cessation of activities in Vietnam, a great deal of American war surplus will be coming on to the market. Surely there is now a chance of obtaining some cut-price aircraft of the types which are so badly needed.

Lord Lambton: I shall find out and write to my hon. Friend.
I turn to deal with the maritime role of the VSTOL aircraft which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester. I find myself in some difficulty because I do not think I can add anything to what has been said before by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence, who had the advantage of hearing the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend in the previous defence debate. I have armed myself with the reply which he gave, and so we shall have something of a repeat performance today.
What my hon. Friend said was that the Harrier, which is now in operational service, is essentially a day ground-attack and land-based aircraft. For the maritime role we require a multi-role aircraft capable of attack, reconnaissance and all-weather air defence operations. Project definition studies to establish the technical feasibility of making the current aircraft suitable for maritime employment, and to assess the cost effectiveness of the best solution against the threat at the time are now well advanced. The problem is complex, and some redesign work would inevitably be required. If the results of the project definition phase show that we shall be able to produce a suitable maritime VSTOL aircraft which meets the requirement, our intention is to adopt it. We must, however, complete the project definition studies before we can make the necessary decision.
As I understand the situation, we shall know the result before the end of the summer, and I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he will wait until then—otherwise I am afraid that whoever speaks from the Government Front Bench on defence matters will again have to have recourse to the Minister of State's words which, though written in good English, do not bear endless repetition.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was asking about the much wider issue related to the defence of our trade routes, and not just about the relatively narrow matter involving the maritime Harrier, on which I got an answer of sorts in the previous debate.

Lord Lambton: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised a large issue indeed. There is not the slightest doubt that, looking ahead, one of the great problems in the world will be the defence of the oil routes from the Gulf to this country and to America. I imagine that at a later date we shall be asking NATO whether it believes it reasonable to take the view that our great responsibilities should end at the Tropic of Cancer. That, however, is a rather larger problem than the matter with which we have been dealing today. I believe that it is a part of the world which inevitably will become more important. One hopes that interests in Europe will result in more attention being given to the oil routes by all rather than by us alone.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is what I wanted to hear.

Lord Lambton: I have tried to cover a number of points and no doubt I have omitted a few. I hope that I may be allowed to write—

Mr. John: Will the hon. Gentleman not respond to the request of the people of Pershore for a meeting with the Minister in his Department?

Lord Lambton: We have had endless consultations over this matter, but if the hon. Member for Pontypridd will write to me we shall see whether anything more can be done. The matter has been gone into thoroughly and I doubt whether anything extra is to be gained by repeating what has already been said and made plain. I conclude by saying that if there are any points which I have not answered, I shall deal with them by correspondence.

Mr. Marcus Fox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FARM CAPITAL GRANTS

8.18 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variations) Scheme 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 492), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with the two Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Schemes 1973 together, the one covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the other Scotland.
The purpose of the variation schemes is to reduce the standard rate of grant from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. for works and facilities for which application for grant is made on or after 22nd March this year. This change was notified to the House on 21st March by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when he made his statement on this year's Annual Price Review.
I am sure that everyone present tonight will have welcomed the substantial increase in capital investment on farms in recent years. It is one of the outstanding features of the British countryside. This increase largely reflects the rise in farm incomes and also the confidence which our farmers have come to feel in the prospects for agriculture. It is because the industry is in this buoyant state that the Government regard as unjustified the fears that have been expressed about the effect of the cut in the rate of grant.
I know that there are those who ask whether the reduction has anything to do with our entry into Europe. I can answer emphatically that it has nothing at all to do with it. Secondly, it has been asked whether this is perhaps the beginning of the phasing-out or abandoning of the farm capital grant scheme. Again, I would say most certainly not. But every Government grant must be looked at periodically in the context of wider agricultural interests. With regard to the question of the Community it is true that some modifications may have to be made, but I do not expect that any of these will be of much significance.
Farmers have the incentive to continue to expand production. We very much want them to do so. I am well aware of the high interest rates for overdrafts and of the recent increases made by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. But the rise in farmers' incomes has given them the means to maintain the level of investment necessary to meet future market requirements.
If I am right in my assessment of the situation, the Government no longer have to provide quite such a large amount


of direct financial assistance for the generality of works and facilities covered by the capital grant scheme. The amount spent by the Government on grants for capital improvement on farms rose from £36·5 million in 1970–71 to over £74 million in 1972–73. In the present year, 1973–74, we estimate that the amount will rise to nearly £93 million.
It is true that this very large sum partly reflects the rush of applications made in the first quarter of last year before the end of the temporary 10 per cent. addition to the rate of grant on 18th March. It is also true that the value of money is different, but it is not as different as all that.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Is my hon. Friend including the increased figure of the continuing amount for drainage grants, co-operation and the like?

Mr. Stodart: Yes. I am taking this from page 34 of the White Paper.
It is also true that the number of applications declined a bit during the latter part of last year, but such a reaction was only to be expected after the rush I have described in the first three months.
The latest figures, for the first quarter of this year, show a marked rise in the number of applications. The number in England and Wales during the last three months was over 21,000, which indicates a continuing high level of investment.
Even after allowing for the effect of the flood of applications up to March a year ago, the increase in actual and estimated expenditure is remarkable. Capital grants represented about 9 per cent. of the total estimated cost of agricultural support in 1968–69. In 1972–73 the proportion is estimated to be 26 per cent. and the forecast proportion for 1973–74 is even higher.
Therefore, it is not altogether surprising that the Government regard the amount spent on capital grants as being out of proportion with other forms of agricultural support. To redress the balance we decided that the standard rate of grant should be scaled down to 20 per cent., but we have made no cuts in the special rates of grant for drainage, for improvements to hill land or for

remodelling works which are needed because of an approved farm amalgamation. Nor have we made any change in the grants for similar improvements under the horticulture improvement scheme, the agriculture and horticulture co-operation scheme or the agricultural investment grant scheme.
A point on which there has been criticism of the guillotine coming down so sharply is that we had to bring the schemes into operation quickly in order to prevent a repetition of the flood of applications we experienced last year from persons who would, perfectly understandably, have wanted to forestall the decrease in the rate of grant. I have mentioned the rush of applications which took place last year when the higher rates of grant came to an end and when it was announced that the grant for certain minor items, such as low ground fencing, was to stop. The announcements then gave two weeks' and four weeks' notice respectively of the changes, and the number of applications in March 1972 was eight times the normal monthly intake. The present change in the rate of grant does not affect applications made before 22nd March this year.
In this connection it has been put to me that there have been instances when intending applicants for grant have been asked by my Department to delay lodging applications so that the pipeline ahead of them might clear. I have no evidence of any of my staff having asked a prospective applicant to hold back his application. We have always been willing to accept applications which set out clearly —if necessary in outline,—the work proposed, where it is to be done and its estimated cost. But if any hon. Member can provide details of such a request, I shall be glad to look into the case and to write to him.
In 1972 the agriculture industry invested £167 million in buildings and works. Expressed in real terms this was an increase of about 10 per cent. on the volume of the investment in 1971, which was itself a record. It is clear that the industry is now geared to a fairly high level of investment. It has never been better placed to take advantage of it. In these conditions I have no doubt that the industry will be able to maintain an adequate level of investment with


the rates of grant set out in these two statutory instruments.
I conclude by recalling a conversation I heard on an early-morning farm programme on the radio one Saturday about a month ago—probably the Saturday after the announcement of the Price Review. Three farmers were being interviewed as to their opinions of the cut in the grant. The first said that he was extremely glad. "I have got done nearly all the building I was thinking of doing", he said. The second said "Thank goodness, I got my scheme in in time to get the 30 per cent." The third said, somewhat dismally, "I have been caught, because my scheme is not in yet ". The interviewer or chairman of the discussion asked him "Well, what are you going to do? Are you going ahead with it?" The reply of the third man was "Oh, it will not make any difference. I will go ahead just as before". This is the assessment I would make of the effect that the cut will have.
I hope I have given the House a clear explanation of the two schemes.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, and what was said by those three speakers on the radio, are correct. and I hope that my fears and those of many in the industry about the effect of this cut are unfounded. I believe this is a scheme which both sides of the House have welcomed. I believe it is true to say that both the last Government and this present Government had some hand in producing it. While perhaps both sides had certain reservations about it, we generally accepted it, believing that it was to the benefit of agriculture and in the long run to the benefit of the British housewife.
We on this side, however, certainly regret the Government's decision to reduce the level because we believe it could —and I emphasise could—affect the very buoyancy to which the Minister referred in introducing this scheme. In our submissions we find considerable support from the industry itself. The Minister and the House well know that the National Farmers' Union is very concerned about this aspect which was announced in the Farm Price Review. The Country Landowners' Association went

considerably further than that. The President of that body, Mr. Graham, went so far as to say
The cut will hinder the industry's efforts to boost production, on which lower food prices depend.
Obviously, when we get a statement like that from a gentleman in such a position of authority we are bound to take it seriously and to try to assess the effect of the scheme. When we hear that it could affect prices and when we in this House are also conscious of the effect on prices, clearly we have to look at this scheme with extreme care and caution
I fully accept the Government's point that there has been a welcome increase of investment in agriculture. That is good, not only for farmers but for the country as a whole. I would argue that it is not in the general interest at this stage of our fight against inflation to do anything which might threaten that investment. It is on this point that we take issue with the Government. We accept the figures which the Minister has given showing that investment in 1972–73 will be £74 million and in 1973–74 will be £93 million.

Mr. Stainton: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the expression on page 11 of the White Paper on the Farm Price Review that estimates for 1973–74 are on the convention basis of guaranteed prices and that rates of grants will be the same as in 1972–73?

Mr. Clark: The point about it, which I believe the Minister will confirm, is that the estimated amount of grant for 1973–74 is in the region of £93 million. I believe that there I am using the Minister's own figure. We welcome it and we do not dispute it for a moment. I would point out that the scheme we are discussing will not affect the figures one iota. We shall have to wait until 1975 to know in round figures the cost to the Exchequer, when it will be approximately £50 million.
What worries me is that there is no doubt that the rate of grant has affected the investment rate. In his introduction the Minister quoted other instances where a two- and four-week period was given for phasing out the grant, with the result that in that period there was a great inflow of applications for grant, proving the point.
Both Governments accept—and that is why we advocate it—that there are times when extra incentives that are offered will be effective. I have managed to work out a figure. If we look at the rate of take-up of grants in the three months to 28th February this year, we find that these were at the level of only 46 percent. of that of the previous 12 months when a very much higher rate of grant was available. This will be one reason why we have a high Exchequer cost of capital grant, due largely to the level of applications in the two-year period to 18th March 1972, when a 40 percent. grant was available. This has appealed to the farmers, as it was meant to.
But the point is that as it has been found historically that an increase in the level of grants has led to an increase in the level of investments, we fear that a decrease in the level of grants will lead to a decrease in investments. I hope that we are proved wrong and that the three wise men who advised the Minister on the radio are correct. I hope that farmers will invest, but we on this side have our doubts.
We also have doubts because of another factor. We must consider the cost of borrowing money when we discuss the effect of the scheme and its implications. We all know the overdraft rate for bank loans. The interest rate for a fixed-interest loan for farmers from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation today is 11¼ per cent. Only a year ago it was 8½ per cent. This means that if a farmer borrows from the AMC he faces considerable extra repayment burdens in addition to the loss of the 10 percent. grant, the loss of one-third of the grant.
If we examine the matter, bearing in mind the extra cost of building during the past year, we reach a remarkable figure. A building costing £1,000 in February 1972 would have involved a farmer in a capital cost of £600 after he had received a 40 percent. grant. He could borrow money from the AMC at 8½ per cent. The cost of a similar building has now increased to £1,190 and the farmer will receive only a 20 per cent. grant. The net cost after the grant is £962, at an interest rat of 11½ percent. from the corporation. The cost is 60 per

cent, higher than it was a year ago. Hard facts like this worry us when we discuss the scheme.
I was glad to hear the Minister make two points. The first was that the scheme had nothing to do with the EEC. Some of us were becoming a bit suspicious that it was the first stage of the phasing-out of the capital grant scheme, but according to the Minister that is not so. We are at an early stage of the whole proceedings but we should like to know his thoughts on the further modifications that will have to be made because of the EEC regulations.
The other point that I welcomed concerned farmers who have been caught out. I should like to have it confirmed that my understanding of what I heard is correct. We are all familiar with allegations that some farmers were preparing their schemes but had been advised by some of the Ministry's officers that they should hold their horses for a little while so that they did not bung up the whole system. The Minister agrees, and we agree, that it is very unfortunate for those people and that if possible something should be done to help them. Is he saying bluntly that if farmers can produce evidence that they were in the process of completing a scheme but had not completed it because of various factors, one of which could be the influence of his officers, those cases will be considered by the Ministry? I hope that is so. The Opposition and the whole industry will be most grateful for a categorical answer.
Our worry is that cutting back on capital grants could damage British agricultural investment, and we object to the scheme for that reason. It seems to us that a direct capital grant of this nature is one way of trying to help the poor consumer. It is not all that obvious but it is a fact because giving direct Exchequer aid in cases like this means there is nothing added to the food price bill, which we are all constantly watching. On the one hand, it leads to an increase in production which enables the industry to modernise, mechanise and absorb the higher cost which it is inevitably facing in these times of inflation. And, of course, it enables the Government to do this without passing on any direct cost to the consumer. It does not affect the market price.
Therefore, we would argue that this capital investment is a positive method by which a Government can support agriculture without increasing food prices. And it is a matter of great regret to us that at this time, when prices are rising at a frightening rate, the Government have decided to cut back on this very scheme by which they could have helped the consumer even in the short run. That is why we are worried about this scheme.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I say in the best of good faith that it is somewhat ironical that we should have from the Opposition benches this argument in defence of what is known in agricultural circles as "landlord's capital". But, be that as it may, it is purely a debating point and I wish to make nothing of it, because the tragedy is that I find myself opposed to my own Front Bench on this matter. This is a real tragedy because over the years I have battled with my hon. Friend the Minister of State on numerous occasions on a variety of agricultural measures dealt with both upstairs in Committee and here in the Chamber and I think I am right in saying that previously we have not had any substantial difficulty. But I take issue with my hon. Friend on the scheme tonight on behalf of my constituents, my farmers in Suffolk and, therefore, I believe, on behalf of the farming community throughout the country.
I suppose it may be argued that the White Paper of which the scheme is a part forms a package, and taken overall that package is a fairly good deal. When one takes a package one trims one item in order perhaps to be more indulgent on another. I can only say in response to that kind of argument that the NFU and the CLA, although restrained, have certainly been extremely forthright in the circulars and documentation they have issued to hon. Members in protest against this measure.
The second argument which has been promoted by the Minister of State tonight is that these grants have become unbalanced and now form an entirely undue proportion of the total amount of agricultural support forthcoming from the Government. In terms of percentage that

is quite right. If we aggregate the figures in the White Paper—and I think we must take the merger of the two series of figures, the pre-capital grant scheme and the capital grant scheme as such over the period 1968–69 to 1973–74 the first figure quoted is £24·5 million, but for 1972–73 it is £74·1 million.
The Minister hesitated to quote a percentage. He merely said that it was higher for 1973–74, and I think it would be difficult to determine the figure. The figure is in the White Paper in sterling terms £92·9 million but on page 11 there is a reservation, which I instanced in my intervention, that the projections for 1973–74 are based on the continuation of the rates of grant applicable prior to the decisions contained in the White Paper.
I shall not pursue that point; we do not want to get tied up in statistics of that kind tonight. It is revealing, however, to reflect on an answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on 27th March comparing the expenditure on the farm capital grant scheme at current prices and at 1968–69 money values. The absolute amount rose from £24·5 million in 1968–69 to £57·6 million in 1971–72.
I do not wish to go further into that matter because we are talking about forecast out-turn thereafter. The multiple of 3·02 is on the say-so of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. But if one deflates these figures to constant 1968-69 money values and starts on the same basis of £24·5 million, one finishes up with £48·2 million, which is a multiple of 1·96 as opposed to 3·02. We must bear this clearly in perspective when talking about the vast increase allegedly contained in these grants.
In many senses we are only touching on the periphery of the argument, which is not about the percentage that these grants absorb of the Government's support for agriculture but must be about something of which we do not know the real profundity. It must be related from the grants to the gross formation of capital investment—we have these figures in the White Paper—in buildings and works. In turn, these two series of figures should and must be related to the capital stock within the industry itself


in order for either of them to be at all meaningful. It is extraordinarily difficult to get to these base figures.
I have had undertaken a certain amount of research. It would appear that a survey in Berkshire in 1968 revealed, for example, that of the building stock in 1968 just short of 60 percent. dated from pre-war. If one is cognisant of that fact and also bears in mind that gross capital formation of building works in agriculture in 1971 was £140 million provisionally and in 1972 was £167 million—let us round it up to £150 million—the best estimate I can get of the 1972 valuations of farm fixed investment is about £1,500 million. This means that gross capital formation is going on at the rate of about 10 per cent., or so one would assume. But when one has regard to the ageing of that stock of capital investment I aver that even with the upsurge which has been taking place the capital investment in agriculture is inadequate.
The biting, bitter fact of this move— I shall come to the anomalies, which are causing a lot of heart-rending, in a moment—is that the people who are hit the hardest by this move are the tenant fanners and owner-occupiers. We are told in paragraph 28 of the White Paper that
In Great Britain 63% of the holdings were wholly or mainly owner-occupied in 1972 compared with 54% in 1960–61.
That is a vast difference—and I am not talking about acreage, which does not in my view, apply in this instance. Thus:
The people who are hardest hit are the tenant farmers and owner-occupiers. The landlord if he puts up new buildings normally simply increases the rent and recoups his outlay.
That is written to me in a very astringent letter from a prominent and competent farmer in my constituency.
One could and should explore many aspects of this situation, given the latitude so to do, but I should like now to take up first the question of the anomalies and then that of Europe. In terms of the anomalies, I have with me a letter from a chartered surveyor who operates not quite within my constituency. He writes that he and his staff have been under enormous pressure, which came to a climax in the last two to three months

as the time for 40 percent. scheme deadlines drew near. He says:
It has been necessary, therefore, to concentrate on the 40 percent. schemes and to leave the balance of 30 percent. schemes to be prepared afterwards in situations where special work is required to start soon.
That was written on 26th March. In effect, therefore, farmers are descending not from 30 percent. to 40 percent. but effectively from 40 percent. to 20 per cent., a cut of 50 per cent.
My correspondent goes on to say:
On 21st March, I had approximately 20 schemes waiting to go to the Ministry in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex under the 30 percent. grant. Final plans had been prepared for almost all these schemes but a few builders' quotations were awaited. I had not submitted the grant application form, as previously I had been asked by the Ministry surveyors in Norfolk and Suffolk to submit schemes in toto to help cut down the extra work incurred in dealing with dribs and drabs. I submitted all these schemes to the respective offices on 22nd March but, as the matter now stands, my clients will forfeit 10 percent. of the grant and my own position is one of considerable embarrasment.
The Minister of State made some encouraging noises on this point, but I should like to know with the utmost precision what he has in mind. He suggested dealing with the hardship cases, but they do not come within the ambit of the scheme. We seem to be thrown upon the goodwill of ex gratia payments from the Treasury. If so, that is lamentable and I am not prepared to settle for that. I want a specific assurance from the Minister of State about exactly how these situations will be dealt with—albeit that I have argued the erroneousness of the cut now contemplated from 30 percent. to 20 per cent.
My final point is about Europe. There is much fear in the farming community that what is in hand now presages changes vis-à-vis our entry to Europe and might well be the thin end of the wedge. It could be that with this thought in mind, there would be a further upsurge. I would agree if the Minister of State were to tell the House that there is overheating in the farm building supply industry. This is an acute problem. To get even a quotation, let alone a competitive quotation, one has to go flat out.
But cutting back the rate to 20 percent. the Ministry is not harmonising at all. It has in fact slashed the rates well below the EEC level. In so doing it has


thrown away one of its trump cards which it should have held very close to its chest in order to pursue the discussions on the modernisation directive which is not due for several months, later this year. Perhaps we have forfeited a tactical situation which could well be to the grave disadvantage of our farming community.
The Minister of State made various references to Europe. He is in direct conflict with Mr. Peter Wormwell of the East Anglian Daily Times who wrote that this move was contrary to the change of policy last year which stipulated that member countries could introduce a system of grants on the United Kingdom pattern and permission was given for the range to be within 25 to 30 per cent. I do not seek to put Mr. Peter Wormwell of the East Anglian Daily Times in direct conflict with the Minister of State, but to my mind that is a very large question mark.
I apologise for having taken so long to put my case, but it is a complicated issue. I hope that I have made my points with reasonable clarity and force-fulness.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It is an ironic situation that yesterday the House was discussing the contribution that this country would have to make to subsidising butter exports to Russia and this evening we are discussing a matter which is a considerable blow to the farm development programme of this country, and will obviously have long-term repercussions on farm costs and therefore eventually on consumer prices.
It is difficult to know exactly what the Government are aiming at in this proposal. Although we are greatly impressed that the Minister gets up so early on a Saturday morning to listen to the farming programme—[Interruption.]

Mr. Stodart: I was in bed.

Mr. Hooson: If the Minister was in bed, I will rephrase my comment and say that although we are greatly impressed that he is awake so early on a Saturday morning after the labours of the week, the story he recited of the discussion between the three farmers seems to me in no way to bear out his point.
Here I declare an interest in that I am a hill farmer and, as we have heard the Minister say, hill-farming grants will continue. But if those grants were to be withdrawn, farmers would still farm in the hills and carry out their proposals, but they would do so far less adequately than at present.
The same situation arises with farm grants. The third farmer the Minister cited may regard it as necessary for his long-term prosperity and that of his family to carry out his farm scheme despite the grant having been reduced to 20 per cent. Nevertheless, no one can doubt that, with modern interest rates, it will be a much greater hazard for him to do so, and that his union will press this point when it comes to reviews of the level of agricultural prices in the Common Market. If a man borrows money at 11¼ percent. and has to borrow an additional 10 percent. of the capital expenditure programme, he is required to make a considerable contribution.
The Government are making a great mistake, now that we have entered the Common Market and there is a change of policy, in introducing this reduction at this time as in my view it is very discouraging to farmers.
It is particularly discouraging to young farmers who have bought farms at a very high price. Well-established farmers have already carried out their improvements, as will be seen from the improvement schemes already sanctioned. Young farmers now have to pay more than an economic price for land. They are the people who are at the end of the queue and are faced now with this reduction.
Representing, as I do, a largely agricultural constituency, I know of a number of farmers who, having recently—and by recently I mean in the past five or six years—moved into farms, were preparing their schemes. These are the people who are now left behind. The Government's decision is a stupid one. What they will gain on the swings they will without doubt more than lose on the roundabouts.
Under the Common Market directive this reduction was not necessary. Unless my understanding of the directive is wrong, the computation of the interest rate allowed on various schemes under the continental system works out equivalent


to 30 per cent. for capital grant schemes. We were informed of this in a very helpful background paper by the Country Landowner's Association. I did not see this requoted in the hand-out of the National Farmers Union, but I assume the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply. The farming community protests against this reduction. It is the wrong time to do it, in my view, when farm costs are rising so much and when there is so much consumer protest over the rise in farm prices. How can one possibly resist the claim for additional farm prices when 10 per cent. is to be added to the rent in the case of a tenant and when the owner-occupier faces an additional and substantial capital cost which has to be capitalised and the interest rate taken into regard in calculating farm costs? The Government are making a great mistake in reducing the grant from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent.
I add one last plea to reinforce that of previous speakers that consideration should be given to those fanners who had schemes ready to go in and that particular care should be taken to see they do not suffer as a result. I do not know how the Government are to work out a practical system for sorting out the sheep from the goats on this matter and for being satisfied that schemes were genuinely about to go in. That is a matter of some difficulty.
But even though there was an upsurge with the change from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent.—I was among those who put in a scheme at the last minute—I would have thought it far better and healthier for the country to allow a month's grace rather than bring down the guillotine as the Government have done.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I could not help noticing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), the support of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) for the Country Landowners' Association, which I find most refreshing, not only in general but in particular, because I am a member of that organisation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will fight the good fight with some of his colleagues who have been taking a somewhat different line from that which

he has been taking and who have been supporting the nationalisation of all land.
The schemes have been a major incentive to investment in farm buildings. Equally, no doubt, they have been a major feature in the modernisation of British agriculture. It is not least surprising, when a cut is made in the level of grant, that the disappointment already expressed by a number of hon. Members should have been raised. This disappointment is felt by a large number of farmers and landowners.
It has been argued that the agricultural building industry already has too much work on its hands and that the result of this pressure upon it is that it has tended to put up its costs, not unnecessarily but to provide a disincentive or at least to reduce the pressure upon it. It is argued therefore, as a corollary to this, that a reduction in the grant will reduce the pressure somewhat and will in turn have the effect of reducing the price of some of the buildings which are planned.
It has been claimed that one of the effects of grants at a fairly high level has been that some buildings have been designed with too many ornate features. It follows that a reduction in the grant could mean that some of the embellishments of some buildings could be cut out without any disadvantage to farming operations.
I know that it can be argued that at present it is easier for the owner-occupier or for the landlord to borrow money for necessary investment in buildings because of the considerably enhanced value of land stemming from the recent increases in land prices. However, it must be remembered that those increases have not been particularly welcomed by farmers or by landowners. It can be argued, however, that it is easier to borrow for necessary investment in building because of that increase.
Furthermore, the cost of borrowing can be set off against other profits.
I know that in due course, however much money has to be put up for the purpose of constructing a building, the owner-occupier or landowner will be reimbursed as a result of his capital expenditure claims. Nevertheless, in spite of all these points, the cut which the Government have proposed has caused considerable concern, particularly amongst landowners at a time when rents are frozen.
There is no doubt that the cut will mean considerable changes in plans which in some instances will cause delays. It will mean that many decisions will have to be revised. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the cost of the capital grant scheme was out of proportion to the total cost of agricultural support. That is probably a fair point, given that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had so much money available to allocate and that he had to make certain choices. Probably he was right this year to spread the financial resources more widely amongst more farmers. He was able to spread the resources more widely than he would have done if he had retained the level of grants at 30 per cent. If he had taken that course, he would have been aiding only those who were investing in the near future, rather than the majority of farmers who are committed in other ways.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will watch carefully the trend of applications for building grants in the course of the coming months. If our fears about the effect of the cut are unjustified, all well and good. If our fears should regrettably be justified, I hope that the matter will be considered at the next review and that sympathetic consideration will be given to revising the percentage grant upwards to 30 per cent. once again.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is nothing magical about any specific level of grant. We have to consider the trend and not the particular figure at any one time. The most significant single trend in farming over the last year has been the steep rise in costs. These have had many components—fuel, electricity, wage, fertiliser and building costs —quite apart from fodder costs. It is allegedly Government policy to achieve two results. One is a continued increase in British agricultural output and the other is a containment in unit cost over the increased output.
That is a fair summary of Government policy as proclaimed. Therefore we need to judge the trend of costs to see whether they are compatible with those two objectives and in particular what the effect of this measure is likely to be. If we take

an improvement scheme costing £5,000. and that is by no means a very ambitious scheme, the increase in AMC variable rate over the last couple of years from 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. adds an additional £200 a year to the cost of servicing that loan. Having to pay 12 per cent. on an additional £500 which has to be borrowed, because that is the amount by which the grant is reduced on a £5,000 scheme, entails interest charges of another £60 a year.
Taking this simple example, the combination of the increase in interest rates and the reduction in grant from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. for a £5,000 improvement scheme imposes increased costs in excess of £5 a week on the farmer. If the Government do not mind production costs rising and being reflected in increasing food prices, well and good. But that is not what the Government say. They say that they want farmers to increase their efficiency. I think that is the usual phrase. What does increasing efficiency mean? It generally means a greater ratio of capital to labour. By decreasing the percentage grants that is exactly the trend which is discouraged.
Farm labour costs will continue to rise. Most people would grant that the rate of pay for agricultural workers is still far behind what it ought to be compared with other members of the community. This will be remedied only by fresh infusions of capital into the industry. This process is not encouraged by slashing the grant by one-third. This is the gravamen of the case, and theoretical considerations about balance ought not to take precedence over judging compatibility with the Government's agricultural policy as a whole.
Those are the criteria I ask my hon. Friend to apply. Unfortunately in this scheme he leaves himself no flexibility whatever. It is unhappily, no good his coming to the Box and saying that he will look sympathetically at cases which have been chopped off by the scheme because sympathy is all that the people concerned will get. The scheme does not empower him to make that effective. That is why when his right hon. Friend introduced it there were some theoretical grounds on which to justify it, but it is incompatible with the major objectives of the Government's policy both in terms
 


of food prices and in terms of continuing to stimulate increased agricultural output.
It is worth spelling out why we want increased agricultural output, because it is not self-evident to everyone. When people have taken on board the fact that the era of buying food at marginal surplus prices is probably over for all time and we are moving into an era in which the true cost of production rather than the marginal price of surpluses will determine what the consumer pays, the case for becoming more self-sufficient in agricultural production becomes ever more convincing to those who were not initially sympathetic to it.
When we saw what happened to grain prices six months ago—not because the cost of producing grain had risen astronomically, but because that little margin of surplus which used to depress international prices had vanished—many people were brought face to face for the first time with the facts about food production. Recent dramatic increases in beef prices have also brought people face to face with the international situation that will be the reality in the foreseeable future.
The Government should bear in mind these long-term trends rather than the short-term budgetary ones, particularly when one recollects that the effect of these changes in terms of spending from the Consolidated Fund is likely to be felt in 1975 rather than now. The effect on food prices is likely to be felt in the shorter term and the effect on the Consolidated Fund in the longer term. All in all that suggests an imbalance of policy rather than the right balance.
That is why I should be much happier if my hon. Friend were able to say that he is not obliged to ask us to confirm the scheme tonight. A scrutiny of the date on which the order was laid suggests that there is some slack in the rope, so that he could go back to his right hon. Friend after tonight's debate and reconsider this matter.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I had not intended to intervene, but I should like to make a few comments in response to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) who suggested

that some hon. Members had been converted to the cause and were now supporters of the Country Landowners' Association. The hon. Member for Devizes has it entirely wrong. What has happened is that the CLA has come to agree with us. That agreement is being expressed in terms that it is incomprehensible that the Government are prepared to jeopardise food prices in the way they have. One can only agree with the CLA and say that one hopes that the song of joy for the repentant sinner will be repeated in the months ahead if the Government continue to conduct their agricultural policies in the way they are doing.
I have spoken to farmers in my constituency about some of these policies, though not recently about the capital grants scheme. Many of them will be astonished at the proposal to reduce the amount of grant since they have been horrified during the past two years and four months to have no fewer than eight changes, all going upwards, in the rates of interest that they have had to pay. The current rate—it went up only a few days ago—is prohibitive for any farmer contemplating the kind of capital investment that British argriculture must continue to have.
Recently I visited a farm in my constituency, the farmer having contacted me about the impending shortage of feeding stuff for his pigs and poultry. At the end of last year and the early part of 1973 many farmers were extremely anxious about the supply of feed for their poultry. Many of them were living on what might be termed a hand-to-mouth basis. As a result of their experience, many will wish desperately to increase their storage capacity to enable them to live through the next period of shortage a little more comfortably. The cost of providing that capacity is soaring. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Come Valley (Mr. David Clark) was remarkably kind when he pointed out that whereas it would have cost £1,000 a little while ago, it will now cost £1,190. I believe that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Wood-bridge (Mr. Stainton) was more accurate when he said that it was more likely to be £1,250 or £1,300 and that by the end of this year it would no doubt be higher.
That being so, the reduction of grants when interest rates are soaring and building costs are rising rapidly, and when no fanner can look forward to maintaining an 11½ per cent.. interest rate with any confidence, means that this is an untimely measure. I hope that the Minister of State will think again.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I begin by repeating what I said in opening. No one ever likes anything being cut. Wherever the cut falls, people will not be very pleased.
The main argument confronting us about which it is my job to try to convince the House is whether farmers' incomes are not much better than they were three years ago. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said that farmers were horrified about what had happened in the past two years. I remind him that I am a farmer. I know all about overdrafts. I assure him that farmers are much more contented than they were in the early part of 1970. One indication of their lack of discontent possibly is to be found in the amount of mail which Ministers in my Department receive from hon. Members. There has been a very significant fall.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) what I said earlier: the call is still for expansion. Hon. Members on both sides have said that they have their doubts about whether we shall achieve it in view of this cut. Personally I think we shall.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke about increased costs. There are increased costs. It would be foolish to deny that. However Tables 20 and 23 in the White Paper reveal that these have been counterbalanced by very welcome increases in farmers' incomes. This is a matter that we cannot altogether ignore. My right hon. Friend and I are confident that in present conditions there will be no adverse effect on production.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said that he thought that the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association had been restrained in their comments. That is a fair com-

ment. I know that the CLA in particular has expressed grave displeasure about this matter. Again, it does not surprise me that it should.
My hon. Friend referred to the vast increases that had taken place in the figures that I had quoted. I accept that inflation has taken place, but not to such an extent as to rebut my claim that investment in real terms has been going along very well indeed.
My hon. Friend referred to the level of aid and, understandably, attempted to draw a comparison with what is available in other member countries of the EEC. The difficulty is that there is no EEC level as such, because there are wide variations. I believe that farmers here are getting fair treatment compared with the aid for capital investment which is available in other member countries. A 20 per cent. grant is broadly comparable with a 4 per cent. interest rebate on a 15-year loan repaid by equal annual instalments. This is roughly similar to the general level of aid in both France and Western Germany. In Holland the system of grants is quite different. Even with this cut and the pitch down to 20 per cent. for what I call the common-or-garden side of the capital grants scheme, we still have 60 per cent. for drainage and higher rates in the hill areas. Therefore, there can be no question of saying that we are worse off compared with the rather complex system of grants in Europe.
I repeat, there is absolutely no connection between going into Europe and the cut that we have made. It has nothing to do with any attempt to get to the EEC level or anything like it. If we find that the cut has an adverse effect, I undertake that naturally we shall watch the situation closely and will take what action may be needed.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—I did not know that he was a hill farmer—is extremely lucky. My farm is the last one outside the hill areas. Therefore, no doubt like his, it is the most difficult farm in the world. However, I suggest that mine is the more difficult because I get absolutely none of what in Scotland are called subsidies, whereas he must do well out of them.
Many hon. Members have touched on the extremely important matter of what might be loosely described as hard cases. I must be frank with the House. There would clearly be endless room for argument whether a scheme was "on the point of being sent in". To avoid unfairness and anomalies we must choose a clear and objective date. The best date to choose is the date when the application is received by the Ministry.
As I have already said, if any hon. Gentleman has evidence and can provide me with a good case for saying that my Department has been responsible for saying to that farmer, "Do not put in your claim for the time being because it is inconvenient for us", then I shall look into it with the greatest care. I cannot of course make promises on cases which, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, are at this stage hypothetical, until I have seen individual cases and what they add up to. Therefore, I cannot give a blanket assurance that all will be well. But I give an undertaking that I shall look personally at every case and that I shall try to judge, as I think fairly, whether some recompense can be made.

Mr. David Clark: I appreciate the Minister's gesture and I am sure that he will carefully review every case that is referred to him. May I press him on one point? If the House approves the scheme, has he any power to give people a grant of an extra 10 per cent. if the submission date was after 22nd March?

Mr. Stodart: I must be frank and say that I have to make a case in equity to get money to do this. That responsibility would lie on my shoulders. I shall do my best and all I can ask is for the House to trust me to do my best.

Questions put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 492), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (Scotland) Scheme 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 476) a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — GREY SQUIRRELS

9.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That the Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
This order has the effect of permitting the controlled use of the poison Warfarin against grey squirrels in England and Wales.
Grey squirrels were first brought to Britain towards the end of the last century, no doubt without any proper consideration of the risk that a new pest species was being introduced. Since the 1920s they have greatly increased in number and have spread into most parts of the country. They are responsible for a great deal of damage of economic significance in our hardwood plantations, often stunting the growth of young trees, particularly beech and sycamore, and sometimes killing them outright. Orchards and farm crops adjoining woodlands may also suffer seriously from their depredations and they can be a great nuisance in suburban gardens, as many hon. Members will doubtless know from first-hand experience. These creatures have also replaced our native red squirrel from most of our counties.
To protect their trees, woodland owners and others are obliged to take action to control this pest and for many years they have been doing so by trapping and shooting. These methods can be fully effective in giving local protection if pursued vigorously in the right places and at the right time of the year, but they are costly in labour. Anticipating a demand for a more cost-effective method of control, Government scientists have for some years been trying to develop a safe and -more efficient method, using the rat poison Warfarin. They have now found a way of presenting the poison bait in a special hopper device which is described in detail in the order. Field trials carried out in woodlands in many parts of the country with this type of hopper have shown that the risks to other wildlife and to domestic animals are minimal.
At present it is an offence in England and Wales, under the Protection of


Animals Act 1911, to lay poison or poisoned bait on land or in a building, but the Act provides a defence if it can be shown that this was done to destroy small ground vermin such as rats and mice in the interests of public health or agriculture. As grey squirrels live in trees, it is generally held that this defence would not apply if poison were used to control them. Hon. Members will remember, however, that a provision was included in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972 enabling the Agriculture Ministers to make orders permitting a specified poison to be used in a specified manner against grey squirrels.
The draft order we are now considering would permit the use of the anticoagulant rat poison, Warfarin, at a specified concentration in a bait consisting of whole-grain wheat. It stipulates that this bait may be put down only in the type of hopper authorised for this purpose, except when it is used inside buildings where other wildlife would not be at risk.
The order applies to the whole of England and Wales but there are 16 counties in which the use of Warfarin will not be permitted out of doors because of the existence of viable populations of red squirrels which could be put at risk.
Isolated populations of red squirrels are to be found in the Thetford Chase area of West Suffolk but grey squirrels are doing serious damage in other parts of that county. To meet this difficulty the Forestry Commission has given an assurance that poison will not be used against grey squirrels in the commission's woodlands at Thetford Chase. With this assurance, we have considered it reasonable to extend the provisions of the draft order of the county of West Suffolk.
In Scotland the grey squirrel is a much less serious problem than it is in England and Wales. This may be because it is essentially a pest of broad-leaved trees and only rarely attacks conifers, which predominate in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has therefore come to the conclusion that there is no need for the provisions of this draft order to extend to Scotland at the present time.
The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act also stipulates that before mak-

ing an order Ministers must consult interested organisations. This we have done by seeking the views of a number of national bodies representing interests including forestry, wildlife conservation and animal protection. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have carefully considered the comments of those organisations and we have adopted a number of their helpful suggestions. With the exception of the RSPCA, which is opposed in principle to any increase in the use of poison in the countryside, these organisations were generally favourably disposed to the measures proposed in the draft order, which have also been endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals.
We recognise that, in spite of the precautions we are prescribing to minimise the risks to other wildlife, there will still be many who will remain apprehensive about the use of any poison in the countryside. To allay their fears, we want to assure them that the Ministry and Nature Conservancy officials will be alert to any reports of undesirable effects.
In conclusion I remind hon. Members that 1973 has been designated Tree Planting Year to encourage the improvement of our environment. The depredations of the grey squirrels have left their mark on many of cur trees and I urge woodland owners to do all they can to protect their trees from further damage, not only in their own interests but for the benefit of future generations. The measures we are proposing in the draft order will supplement existing methods of control in many areas and should go some way to help them in their efforts.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: As one who started his working life as a forester, I am obviously more conscious than most people of the dangers and difficulties caused by the grey squirrel. Having said that, however, I have certain reservations, and perhaps all of us have, about the order. We see the obvious advantages in that it could protect woodlands and could help towards re-establishing the red squirrel in certain parts of the country. Nevertheless we have certain serious doubts about it and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us reassurance on some points which I should like to raise.
First, I wonder whether in presenting the order the hon. Lady is convinced that there is no danger to humans through the use of Warfarin. Obviously, when it is used to control rats certain precautions are taken. I am certain that precautions will be taken in this case and I have no doubt that the Forestry Commission will do everything that is humanly possible to make the use of this poison safe. I am worried, however, that there might be some individuals who are a little careless. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts about that. Can the hon. Lady say anything about the functions intended by her Department or the Nature Conservancy in checking of the use of this poison? We hear that there is to be a limited number of checks but can she give us any idea of how limited they will be and whether she will be prepared to increase the checks if she hears rumours and worries in certain regions?
Secondly, I understand that agreement has been reached with certain of the naturalists' trusts that where Warfarin is to be used in the vicinity of nature reserves and similar places, those trusts will be consulted. Can the Minister confirm this? If this is not so, can she say whether it is possible to invoke this provision?
Thirdly, I understand from a report of the field trials carried out by the Department and the Forestry Commission that the risks to red squirrels arising from the field trials are very slight. I wonder whether the Minister is seriously considering publishing that report as soon as possible. In reply to a Question of mine she kindly said that it would appear in a learned journal as soon as possible, but it is a little more urgent than that. Would the Minister be prepared to arrange for the report to be published in some way, perhaps as a departmental leaflet, so that if there are any doubts or dangers we can all be made aware of them?
The last of my specific worries about the order relates to its blanket county exclusion. The Minister has explained clearly that the poison will not be allowed to be used in certain of the counties listed except inside a building, but on examination I find that there are certain idiosyncrasies. I find that the poison may be used only inside a building in almost all

the northern counties—Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, Durham and Lancashire; but I find no mention at all of Yorkshire, either West or North.
This is a point of particular concern because, if the Parliamentary Secretary remembers her geography, she will recollect that there are parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire which cut right into Lancashire. I am thinking particularly of the area round the Forest of Bowland and Sedburgh, parts of Yorkshire, on the Lancashire side of the Pennines which cut right into Lancashire. It seems a little inconsistent that in areas perhaps on one side of the river in Lancashire it will not be permissible to use the poison whereas on the other side it can be used in these specific areas. Will the Minister look at this aspect again to see whether it is possible to rezone parts of various counties? It is a bit too much to say that all of Yorkshire—the frontier country in the north in this respect— should be allowed to use poison.
In addition to those worries there are certain other points that the Minister must answer. First, we all recognise the dangers to forestry, especially to broad-leaved deciduous forestry. There is a great clamour for deciduous planting; the public are always on to the Forestry Commission about its conifers. Yet I sometimes feel that the public do not understand the commission's problems. There may be a clamour from the general public that it is wicked to do anything that will get rid of what looks like a rather attractive animal, the grey squirrel. It is rather ironic that those same forest plantations could be the places where we might find the red squirrel re-establishing itself, which would be welcome.
The Minister's main argument is that we need the order because of the spreading danger of grey squirrels. But there has been a number of developments in the past two or three months on which we should like further information before passing the order. The first is a report that appeared in only the past day or so about what has been called an outbreak of a myxomatosis-type virus among grey squirrels. I understand from Press reports that over the weekend a case was discoverd in Berkshire of a grey squirrel suffering from a disease that


appeared to be very similar to myxomatosis. If that is so and there is a myxomatosis-type outbreak against the grey squirrel, is it necessary to introduce the order?
Secondly, many of us were amused and interested by recent Press reports that the Pill would be the ultimate weapon against the grey squirrel. That seems rather bizarre to many of us. Can the Minster explain how the contraceptive pill will be used on the grey squirrel? We understand that a new research project is being conducted in the zoology department of Reading University, with a grant from the Forestry Commission of £1,050. How far advanced is that research? Does the Minister think that that type of biological warfare will work?
It has been found that where attempts have been made to poke out dreys or to control the numbers by shooting, the grey squirrels seem to react in a way that makes up their numbers. If a large number are shot in one season there seems to be a large number of young surviving, whereas if they are left the same number seem to appear.
Certain types of rats have developed immunity to Warfarin. Is the Minister convinced that the task is not hopeless and that the grey squirrels will not quickly become immune to Warfarin? I hope that she and the Forestry Commission are not simply sitting back and taking the attitude that because they have the order everything is under control. I hope that they are exploring as many avenues as possible, including the Pill.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she presented this order and on the very full detailed and expert explanation she gave in support of it. Having said that, I have exhausted all the applause and admiration I can give for this piece of work. I regard it as neither necessary nor desirable and can think of many other more useful pieces of legislation the House might be discussing at this hour on a Thursday night.
There are two or three things about it which I find particularly unnecessary. For instance, paragraph 3, which refers to the "manner of use" and says that

these Warfarin poisons may be used inside a building for the purpose of destroying grey squirrels anywhere in the country, is quite unnecessary because Warfarin is used in and around buildings all over the country in red squirrel or grey squirrel areas for the purpose of destroying rats and mice. If there is a grey squirrel plague in a building they will have been fed on Warfarin for many years by those who have charge of the building. What happens there?
What I particularly do not like about this order is that it seems to be almost a tradition of the Ministry of Agriculture now to introduce various attempts to control by different poisons what are regarded as pests at one time or another in the country. I well remember a few years ago in the time of my hon. Friend's predecessor when, at great expense to the public, a narcotic bait scheme was introduced. This was a disastrous failure which eventually worked out at about 30s. for each wood pigeon which was killed as a result of the experiment, and I am glad to say that in 1970 my right hon. Friend abandoned this scheme. But there is somebody at the back of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor in the Department, I am sure, who is pushing these new methods of pest control, including this which we have now and which I regard as quite unnecessary and highly undesirable.
I should like to say first why I regard it as undesirable. My hon. Friend will have seen that all the statistics in this order are in millimetres. Unfortunately there is not a conversion table at the bottom of the order, but I have managed with some difficulty to work these out in inches. It works out roughly that the access channel to this bait will be about eight inches long, four inches high and four inches wide, and it will be legal to fill the hopper at the end of this channel with Warfarin in all parts of the country except the listed counties.
This is objectionable and undesirable because a mouth of that size to the channel will allow access to a myriad of small mammals in our countryside. Grey squirrels will not go into it just because this attractive bait is laid down for them. In hard weather, and probably in soft weather too, there will be voles, mice and hedgehogs. Even a hare can get in, and shrews, and many little mammals can


and will have ready access to this channel and to the bait. If the grey squirrel and the red squirrel go in and scratch a bit, there will be a lot of poison spread around the outside which, in hard weather particularly, will be an attraction to birds, and indeed to the larger mammals who will no doubt come along in hard weather and sniff around outside and pick up what they can.
I find it objectionable, because we are laying a poison in the countryside which in my view will become far too readily available to lots of small creatures which are a distinct asset to the countryside and do not do the damage that the grey squirrel undoubtedly does.
The other reason why I dislike the order is that I find it unnecessary. I have described why I find it objectionable. I find it unnecessary because I believe that adequate methods of control of the grey squirrel already exist without our having to resort to the official dispensation of another poison around the countryside. There are plenty of methods of adequate control which have been tried by the Ministry and in many parts of the country have been used successfully— such as shooting, trapping and the poking out of dreys. If the Ministry thinks it necessary to control the grey squirrel and to bring it under more strict supervision, surely there are other ways of doing it, such as offering bonuses on grey squirrel tails—which met with some success a few years ago—or by providing a limited number of cartridges to people who would shoot them.
I hope that my hon. Friend understands why I am unhappy about the order. I admire the way in which she placed it before us, but I feel that she is engaged in an exercise which many country people will learn to regret.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I wish I could agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that there were adequate means of controlling the grey squirrel at present. I live in a house which, 15 or 20 years ago, had a marvellous colony of red squirrels. When the windows were open in summer, they used to come into the house. But since then we have been inundated by grey squirrels. Many of them are shot every year and I myself have subsidised people with cart-

ridges to shoot them. Many others have been trapped. But the squirrels are still there.
Yet Montgomery is one of the counties excluded from the provision of Warfarin. I am happy to learn that there are still colonies of red squirrels in Montgomeryshire. If Warfarin is necessary— and I presume that there have been adequate field trials—I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) in asking whether there has been adequate investigation of the analogy of the Warfarin resistant rat.
Soon after I came to this House, I was the first hon. Member to raise the question of the Warfarin-resistant rats, because there happened to be a colony of them in my constituency. My questions used to provoke a good deal of amusement in the House when I spoke of the dangers of these rats. No one laughs now. These rats have been gradually spreading over the whole country and are a great problem. I would not like to think that we were going to breed a species of Warfarin-resistant grey squirrel. This matter needs very careful attention.
Secondly, presuming that there have been adequate field trials, I suggest that the blanket coverage of counties is a wrong approach. I represent a very large county, most of it inundated with grey squirrels. I am astounded at the suggestion that they do not like conifer districts. I agree that they are attracted initially by broad-leafed trees but they are attracted to conifers, too.
We have near my house a lovely example of California redwood trees. I have seen two of them stripped of their bark by grey squirrels, many of which have been shot in the trees while doing it. We have put barbed wire around the trees to a height of four or five feet in order to prevent the grey squirrels from climbing them. We have been gradually recovering the bark as it grows again. It is only a matter of time before the grey squirrel invades Scotland, and I am surprised that Scotland is excluded from the order. But I should have thought it important not to have this blanket coverage.
In different districts where the red squirrel exists, it should be protected, if necessary by special provisions for those


areas. They are coming back to some districts. These provisions could be changed from year to year and proclaimed. While I am in general agreement with the order and assume that the tests have been adequate, I wish that the Minister would re-think the question of coverage to see whether it is not possible to do it more adequately.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Many of my points have already been made, but I should like to start by saying that, although it may well have cost about £2 or £3 per grey squirrel when various bounty schemes were operated, the cost of administering a contraceptive pill to every female, if the practice were adopted widely, is likely to be much more expensive.
I agree that the grey squirrel is very destructive, not only of trees but of other forms of wild life. It does considerable damage to the small bird population in many areas. So I would not disagree in principle with the use of Warfarin where it can be proved the effective answer to the problem. As the Minister said, it need not be the only answer in Britain.
In areas of small woodland and copses what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said is quite valid. We should be able to deal with the problem without scattering poison about. There is already enough poison scattered about the farms and gardens of Britain.
I am anxious about the way in which the order has been prepared. Despite the fact that the Minister's explanation was acceptable and responsible, I have serious anxieties. My principle anxiety reflects that held by the Yorkshire Naturalist Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) has already explained the geographical reasons why the position of Yorkshire should be reconsidered. I should like to present the same argument from another point of view.
The Ministry issued a map recently showing the distribution of red squirrels in this country, certainly in Yorkshire, in 1959 and 1971. I have looked at that map with great care, as have many people interested in natural history in the Yorkshire area. Strangely, the number of grid

squares which are supposed to contain red squirrels seems inaccurate to Yorkshire naturalists.
On the map, the grey squirrel population was said to exist in eight of those grid squares in the West Riding in 1971, in four or five of them in the North Riding and in two in the East Riding. But the naturalists of Yorkshire maintain that the red squirrel population can be found in 20 grid squares in the West Riding and 10 or 11 in the North Riding, and they agree with the Ministry about the East Riding.
The information seems to be inaccurate. I am told by the Ministry's map that there are no red squirrels in my area of South Yorkshire, when I have seen them for myself. At the weekend, I took an hour off from busy and, I hope, successful electioneering to look at a red squirrel drey on the edge of my constituency in an area where there are supposed to be no red squirrels. In many parts of my constituency, again in an area where there are supposed to be none, I learned that there are not only some red ones but some black ones as well.

Mr. Brynmor John: Coal dust.

Mr. Hardy: It is not the coal dust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) suggests because we are vigorously pursuing policies to promote a decent environment.
A form of mutation of the red squirrel is now likely to be imperilled because the Minister would be prepared to allow the placing of Warfarin on the assumption there are no red squirrels there.
I should like the Minister not to dismiss the view of the Yorkshire Naturalists' Trust, which relies on information from the Yorkshire Naturalists' Union, that the Minister's assessment of the red squirrel population in Yorkshire is rather inaccurate but that, on the contrary, there is a viable, stable and probably growing population in many areas of Yorkshire, namely, in the Thirsk and Pickering areas of North Riding, in the south-west, the south, the far west and the northwest of the West Riding.
That being so, I ask the Minister to look again at the situation. It may well be that the red squirrel species, the population of which for many centuries


appears to have pursued a very sharp cyclical pattern, is at the beginning of a period of recovery.
In addition to the argument that there is justifiable anxiety about Yorkshire, I share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough when he referred us to the third paragraph of the order regarding domestic animals and wild birds. If we are not very careful, we shall be destroying the birds and small mammals.
This could have a very serious effect, particularly during a hard winter, on many species of wild birds which are only just recovering from exposure to organo-chlorides and other chemicals used in agriculture in recent years. The kestrel and several species of owl are doing a good deal better now than they were 10 years ago. It seems a great pity to put them in a position in which they will be seriously affected by a reduction in the supply of small mammals on which they rely for food. It therefore seems desirable for the Ministry to take into account the interests not only of wild birds but also of wild mammals.
One way in which the interests of the smaller wild mammals could be taken into account was recounted to me a day or two ago by an hon. Member opposite. He agreed with me that these appliances should not be placed flat upon the ground. If this is done, then the bank vole, the woodmouse and several other small creatures will be killed, as was the case in the trials. The hon. Member suggested that in his estates he will be placing the appliances upon one or two bricks so that the smaller mammals will not easily be able to get into them. Since the appliance is intended to destroy or lead to the destruction of the grey squirrel only, surely the Ministry could consider that point of view sympathetically.
In conclusion, I have two other comments. First, the Yorkshire Naturalists' Trust very much looks forward to the publication of an explanatory leaflet which I understand will be issued. We are debating an order, that order will come into force and subsequently the ex-plantory leaflet will be issued to the interesting bodies, which seems a remarkably tactless and untimely procedure to pursue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned my second point. The Minister has assured both us and various interested bodies that they will be informed should Warfarin be used close to nature reserves. We are grateful for that information. But if they are being informed merely out of courtesy with no ability to change the decision, the passing on of the information will be expensive and unnecessary.
I therefore ask the Minister whether she will make arrangements to pay heed to any representations made by the naturalists' trusts and other bodies. They are not irresponsible bodies but are aware of the serious problems presented by the grey squirrel and therefore their views should be taken into account.
I realise that I have been critical of the Ministry in this matter. Perhaps I should say that I appreciate the problem which the Minister faces. She is under pressure from many forestry and agricultural interests which face a serious problem in many parts of the country as a result of the size of the grey squirrel population. I hope that she will agree with me that more and more people in this country are coming to the conclusion that the use of poison is frequently the easy way out. It is the easy way out for many gardeners, but it is less and less the case that farmers are prepared to use irresponsibly the poisons that are available to them.
I should like to tell the Minister a story which I heard in my constituency at the weekend. One of my constituents visited a farm to take into a field his dog, which he was training for field trial purposes. He asked the farmer, whom he knew, which field the farmer would prefer him to use. The farmer replied, "Do not go into that field with your bitch because I lost my dog there last week. I had just sprayed the field."
The attitude that spraying is something which will not affect wild life even though it can be harmful to domestic animals is very shortsighted. We are likely to be making a further contribution to it if we allow Warfarin to be spread about to an excessive extent. I accept that it is a preferable poison in humane terms to those which contain phosphorus, strychnine or zinc oxides, and


to other poisons which are frequently found in the forester's armoury. However we should be a little more careful and a little more restrictive than the order suggests.
I suggest that we need some guarantee that the appliance will be secure and not flimsily built. A grey squirrel is a powerful animal for its size and we do not want an appliance which it could knock to pieces in about ten minutes. The appliance needs to be raised slightly above the ground. I hope that it never will be placed in Yorkshire and that it will cease to be placed anywhere as soon as we can find an effective alternative, even if it is a pill from Reading University.

10.12 p.m.

Mrs. Fenner: This has been a fascinating debate. Hon. Members obviously share the concern of many people in the country not only for the damage that is done by the grey squirrel but for the preservation of the red squirrel population. Of course, in presenting the order the Ministry has been mindful of both of those views. It is aware of the great damage that the grey squirrel does and the need to be as careful as possible in setting down Warfarin.
I should like to try to answer the many points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) raised an important point when he asked about the danger to humans. I must point out to him and to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that Warfarin has been laid for a number a years for rats. In 22 years we have not had any comment about any danger to humans. The concentration is 0·02 per cent., which is a very light concentration.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley also made the point about publication of the research. He will know from the answer I gave him that a summary of this will be sent to any organisations which have an interest. They have been given a note of the research conclusions and I have this morning arranged to deposit in the Library—it is now so deposited—a summary of the field trial. The full report will be published by the Forestry Commission within the next few months.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Rother Valley, have commented particularly about Yorkshire and about blanket coverage. The choice of counties in which the use of Warfarin will be permitted out of doors under the order was based on information drawn from a most comprehensive survey of the distribution of red and grey squirrels which was carried out by the Ministry in 1971. It was conducted on a scientific basis by field staff who enlisted, wherever possible, the aid of interested local bodies and knowledgeable individuals such as naturalists and gamekeepers.
In Yorkshire the survey showed that red squirrels were now found in only eight small isolated areas. When compared with previous surveys it was found that the red squirrel population was declining. On the other hand grey squirrels are now found in nearly all parts of Yorkshire and they are causing much damage to timber.

Mr. Hardy: I do not wish to contradict the hon. Lady but I must make it clear that I do know the difference between a red squirrel and a grey squirrel. I have seen red squirrels and signs of red squirrels in areas which the Ministry says do not contain them. That view can be stated by numerous people who are interested in natural life in Yorkshire about many other areas which the Ministry says do not contain red squirrels. I ask the hon. Lady to take that factor into account.

Mrs. Fenner: I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman that anyone can be sure of sighting every red squirrel in every area in which they may be found. However, our scientific advisers believe that the results which they obtained fairly reflected the general abundance of grey and red squirrels in parts of Yorkshire.

Mr. David Clark: I realise that the hon. Lady is in a difficult position. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and myself represent Yorkshire constituencies. We are, therefore, familiar with the problem. Yorkshire is the largest county in Britain. It stretches from the East Coast almost to the West—in fact, within five miles of Lancaster. A letter which I received


from the Yorkshire Naturalists' Trust says:
… the red squirrel population in the north-west, far mid-west, south-west and south of Yorkshire are certainly stable, viable populations and may be on the increase.
That is the point I am making. Parts of the west of the county are on the western side of the Pennines, and those portions of the West Riding must be excluded. Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that she will discuss the matter with the Forestry Commission and consider again the area to which I refer?

Mrs. Fenner: I know that in the East and West Ridings there are small areas where both red and grey squirrels are present. Our local officers are sure, being in close liaison with the interested organisations, that they will be able to ensure that the maximum care is taken in the selective use of Warfarin. Preferably, it will not be used in these marginal areas. Both the Nature Conservancy and the Ministry will be alert to any reports of undesirable effects.
I remind hon. Members that the order can be amended by a subsequent order if that proves necessary. I hope that this answers the concern expressed by hon. Members who represent Yorkshire constituencies.
Several hon. Members have asked about the advisory leaflet. It will be published within the next few weeks. It will ask users near nature reserves to consult local naturalists and interested organisations before using Warfarin.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley referred to the birth control pill for the grey squirrel. I am afraid that the research is not yet nearly far advanced enough for it to be put into general use. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that squirrels made good their numbers. That is so, but a campaign over an area of woodland and its surroundings can be locally useful and effective.
A number of hon. Members have raised the point about Warfarin resistance. We know that some rats have become resistant to it. Those rats are no more dangerous than ordinary rats. Warfarin resistance may develop in grey squirrels. Until it does we shall have had a useful means of control. Warfarin-resistant grey squirrels, if they should develop, would be no more damaging

than the grey squirrel of today. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was rather critical of the order. I understand the concern expressed about the use of any more poison. The hopper which is being used is the only permissible one for use in the control of grey squirrels and has been subjected to extensive trials.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, wood mice and bank voles in the immediate vicinity of the bait sites succumbed to the poison but the density of sites required for squirrel control does not involve a large proportion of the total population. Other species observed near the poison sites included rabbits, hares, foxes, roe, fallow and red deer and very small birds, mostly greenfinches and chaffinches. There was no evidence throughout the trials that any of those species had been killed by feeding at the bait containers or on the few grains spilled outside the containers by the feeding squirrels.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke of his concern about blanket coverage of counties. We believe that this is the way to act. I note that he has observed grey squirrels in Montgomery. We also know that there is a viable population of red squirrels in Montgomery. It was our concern, while recognising that the blanket coverage of counties presented difficulties, not to endanger the red squirrel.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley also mentioned bounty schemes. Despite the fact that such schemes dealing with the grey squirrel and other pests might have been partially successful, there is still much damage done by the squirrels. The schemes have obviously not been as effective as we had hoped. The hon. Member also referred to the spraying of poison. What we are seeking in the order is permission for the use of a specified type of hopper with every sort of condition laid upon it. There is no resemblance to spraying.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley mentioned a recently notified virus type infection. I have seen the recent Press reports about it. It is similar to myxomatosis and it is now affecting grey squirrels. I am advised that the viro-logical work has only just begun and it


is much too early to forecast a possible effect, if any, on the grey squirrel population. In any event I do not believe that a tumour virus of this kind—which is not a very humane way for an animal to die—should be used as an agent in

the war on the grey squirrel. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — INLAND REVENUE OFFICE, BOOTLE (CONSTRUCTION)

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising an important matter affecting my constituents in the county borough of Bootle.
For two years there has been a strike affecting a Government building of some proportions in this town. It is a building worth, I believe, £10 million. It is one of the largest office blocks in Europe —a sort of Government-owned Centre Point. All of this has taken place in St. John's House, known locally as "the IRO"; it is the proposed Inland Revenue Office planned to deal with the income tax affairs of 3 million people.
The strike, which has lasted 158 weeks, is taking place against the background of 50,000 people who are unemployed on Merseyside. I am concerned about the effect on school leavers and on people who are over 55 who find it almost impossible to obtain work.
I wonder whether the conscience of the Joint Industry Board, the ETU and the 16 men who have been on strike is stricken because so many people are being kept out of work by an unnecessary and vicious strike. My constituents who are searching for work come to see their Member of Parliament, and they describe the strike as nothing short of a disgrace and a scandal. I have deplored the strike. I have asked questions of the Prime Minister, and I have been down to shop floor level to try to help in resolving it.
Where is the responsibility of the trade unions to its members? Do the trade unions look after their members only when they are not in trouble? In my 40 years' experience as a trade unionist I have known trade unions to look after their men in fair weather and foul, whether or not they agreed with them. Trade unions have a responsibility to ensure that agreements are kept. Too

many trade unionists are ignoring agreements which have been properly made.
I have been in touch with the Joint Industry Board which has been set up for the ETU. Each time I am in touch with the board I become more pessimistic. I refrain from commenting on that organisation, save to say that I hope it will do more to resolve the difficulties which affect my constituents. I say to all the organisations I have mentioned—the trade union, the men on strike and the Joint Industry Board—that they have no right to pillory my unemployed constituents by continuing the strike. No strike is without solution, and this one causes bad industrial relations in parts of Merseyside.
Within a short distance of St. John's House we have built, on time or ahead of time, the Seaforth container base, St. Hugh's House, Magdalen House, Balliol House, Linacre House, St. Peter's House, St. Anne's House and St. Martin's House —which are all used by the Government —Daniel House, the wonderful Triad building and the New Strand.
Does not the Minister agree that planning and control of buildings from London often causes trouble? The buildings to which I have referred were not planned at long range but locally, with local contractors. Will the Minister bear in mind what can go wrong when there is a lack of proper consultation at local level?
In spite of all that the Minister has done, in spite of all that the Government have done, in spite of what the last Government did, and in spite of what Bootle council—one of the best and most progressive planning authorities in the country—has done, there has been a steady climb in the unemployment figures. In Bootle at present there are 4,124 people out of work, 3,550 men and 574 women. When I look at those figures, after a lifetime of trying to serve my people and after a lifetime living amongst them, I regret that that should be the case. We seem to be running like mad to stay in the same place all the time, and this strike is denying 3,500 jobs to my constituents, the equivalent almost of the total unemployment there. Good people who have served their country in peace and war, men of my years who want to work, are in many cases being denied the


right to work. I want to try to arouse the consciences of the people who are concerned in the strike.
It has been said that there is some political motivation in the strike. If there is, I think the people of Bootle should know categorically. If people are causing disruption in industry for political purposes, as a life-long Labour man and as a trade unionist for 40 years I say that that should be made clear. I believe it is untrue. But if it is said by responsible people that there is some political motivation behind the delay in building a Government office, it should be made clear. In view of his personal responsibilities, I do not expect the Minister to answer that question directly, but he might bear in mind what I say. I believe that the strike has been about hours, wages and conditions. Most strikes are.
I want now to give details of the numbers of school leavers in my constituency and other areas of Merseyside in 1972, and then the unemployment figures for those under 18 years of age. In 1972 the number of school leavers in Bootle was 1,489, in Liverpool 5,359, and in Crosby, Litherland, Formby and Maghull, 1,380, making a total of 8,228. The unemployed under-18s numbered 241 in Bootle, 1,872 in Liverpool, and 140 in the other districts, 2,253 in all. Many of them could be absorbed into first-class Government work if the opportunity was provided.
The Inland Revenue came to Bootle six or seven years ago when St. Hugh's House was opened and accommodated the offices of the Inspector of Taxes dealing with London PAYE work and a Collector of Taxes concerned with the collection of London PAYE tax. Shortly afterwards, further Inland Revenue work was brought into the borough, and Magdalen House became the centre for the specialised branch of the Chief Inspector (Claims). So impressed were the Inland Revenue authorities that they decided that Bootle should be one of nine centres to deal with PAYE work, and the construction of St. John's House was begun —a £6 million to £10 million building— to deal with more than 3 million taxpayers in the North-West.
Then came the changes in the taxation system, with the Government getting

rid of the old PAYE system and publishing their Green Paper giving details of the new tax credit scheme. As a result, we do not know what is happening, and I should like some categorical assurances about the present position.
It appears to me that for the past two years most Government Departments have not been unduly worried about the strike. I exclude the hon. Gentleman's Department from that criticism, because I know of the interest there. But it is my belief that the Inland Revenue would have been somewhat embarrassed if the building had been completed on time. We in Bootle want to know what is to be the future of the building. Will the Government take it? If they do, for what purpose will they use it? If they do not take it, shall we be left with a Barbican, a great mausoleum which will be a monument to the parlous state of industrial relations on Merseyside and in the country generally?
I have carried out some research. From what I have heard, both on and off the record, it is clear that the problems at St. John's House are the direct result of making these contractual arrangements at long range. It was said that when James Scott, the major electrical contractor, came on the scene there would be difficulty because it was already up to its neck in labour difficulties in Middlesbrough before coming to Merseyside. These matters should be looked at. The contractors are trying to find a way out.
The main contractor, the huge international McAlpine company, should have taken over from another contractor which backed out of the job. I refer to Tersons. I understand from the Liverpool grape vine that McAlpine is now seeking recourse to the Department of the Environment to try to back out of its contractual liability.
I recommend that, in order to reach a solution, we should get rid of McAlpine and Scott and start the job again with someone else so that it can be completed on time. This has been done in other parts of the country.
I believe that four parties are, or could be, responsible for this strike. It may be that the Government have not tried hard enough. By virtue of the courtesy and attention that I have received from


the Minister over many months, I believe that he has tried. We have come near to success on one or two occasions. I believe that the Government, the Joint Industry Board, the ETU or the men themselves will have to solve this problem. In the last analysis I believe that it will be the men who will solve it. They are virtually in a worse position now than if they had gone back to work in 1971.
We are now in phase 2 of the freeze, and phase 3 has yet to come. Therefore, there can be very little by way of increased wages to help solve the men's problems. So I appeal to them on an old basis. They are not the only working class people to have made sacrifices for very little. They have made their case. I believe that if they return to work it would not be long before we could get some semblance of social justice into the matter. We could then ask the Government to send those 3,500 jobs to where they should be sent—Bootle. They are sending one office to Shipley and another to Cambuslang or Cumbernauld— I forget which place. Bootle is the obvious place for the Inland Revenue to send these new jobs.
There is only one office left to be placed. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to take notice of what I have said. I also appeal to the ETU, which I have known for many years—it has not been without its sorrows and tears, as its history will show—and to this new organisation, the Joint Industry Board, to show some new initiatives.
If I may talk to the men of Bootle from the House of Commons, I ask them to return to work not only for their own sake but for that of so many good people who are out of work. There is nothing more degrading or so bad for human dignity than for decent people who want work to be deprived of it. I believe that this strike is depriving my constituents of work. Therefore, I ask the Government to give me as much support as they can to end this long, vicious and unnecessary strike in Bootle.

10.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) will understand if, when I sit down, some of the questions he has asked

remain unanswered, and he will know why. Whoever may have behaved irresponsibly during the last few years, I certainly acquit the hon. Member of that, because he has been tireless in his pursuit of a solution to this problem which so much affects many of his constituents.
As the hon. Member is aware, and as he has shown tonight, the background to the dispute delaying the completion of the office at Bootle is both long and complicated. But, just as he has followed it with care and very proper concern for his constituents, so—he was good enough to acknowledge this—has my Department devoted considerable time and attention to the dispute. This must be said of the Department of the Environment too. We have provided advice wherever it has been sought and as often as we could.
As the hon. Member knows and has said, I have always been ready to talk to the official representatives of the parties involved and have during the course of the dispute met representatives, as the hon. Member has done, of the Electrical Contractors Association, the Joint Industry Board and Mr. Frank Chapple. My officials have also had numerous meetings, as the hon. Member knows, with the official representatives of the employers and the union. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also been closely involved with the problem and has met representatives of the same organisations together with the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunication Union—Plumbing Trades Union on more than one occasion.
The hon. Member gave some of the history of this sad situation. The site at Bootle is a £5 million project for an office block for the Inland Revenue. It was planned to bring employment to the area, and everyone who knows the hon. Member's area and who has studied the area's figures will understand his deep desire to bring employment there. It was planned to bring employment to the area not only during its construction but when it was in operation.
The two-year main contract was let to Tersons on a firm price basis, and it started on 30th December 1968. Unfortunately, from the outset the project was beset by labour troubles, strikes, go-slows and so on. In August 1969 a decision was taken by Tersons' parent


company to terminate its activities, and the contract as the hon. Member will know, was assigned to Sir Alfred McAlpine and Son Ltd. McAlpine tried to speed up the work by instituting double-shift working but this led to a strike and subsequent industrial action until mid-1971, since when major labour difficulties have been confined to the electrical subcontractors.
The contract should have been completed in December 1970, with the computer accommodation three months earlier, but at that date the project was only about 25 per cent. complete because of the low output arising from the labour situation on the site. The main contractors subsequently sought an extension of time on account of the exceptional labour troubles which they claimed to be beyond their control, and this was granted to some extent by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment.
Electricians employed by the two electrical sub-contractors first came out on unofficial strike on 11th February 1971 in support of a claim for wages in line with those paid to other workers on the site by McAlpine. The claim did not accord with the agreed rules of the Joint Industry Board for the Electrical Contracting Industry, on which the men's union is fully represented. The men refused to resume normal working and were subsequently dismissed.
I should explain—the hon. Member knows these facts well but they should be on the record—that the Joint Industry Board, which is the joint negotiating body for the industry, establishes a standard rate in the electrical contracting industry, and that additions to the rate by way of plus payments are not permitted in the industry except on large sites where special additional payments have been agreed under a JIB determination procedure, about which I shall have more to say later.
In this dispute there were a total of 17 electricians on unofficial strike, although two of these returned to work for a period before the site was finally closed. I understand that those on strike have been supported by collections, mainly from workers on other sites, and pickets are still on duty at the site. There

were a number of occasions when attempts were made to put electricians recruited from other parts of the United Kingdom on the site but they were stopped on each occasion by pickets. It was also reported that men who tried to work on the site were threatened. Eventually, the electrical subcontractors gave up trying to put labour on the site, so all electrical installation ceased.
McAlpine continued to progress the work but, in the absence of electricians, it was not possible to take it beyond 68 per cent. completion. It began laying off the men from July 1972, and the last of them was paid off after Christmas. At present the site has been closed down by McAlpine except for security guards.
I should now like to return to the point which I mentioned earlier about the determination procedure of the Joint Industry Board for the award of additional payments on large sites. It is important that this procedure should be well understood because the fact that it was not adopted in the case of the IRO site at Bootle is one of the root causes of the fact that the dispute has been so long drawn out.
Determination No. 2 under the Joint Industry Board national working rules is described as
A procedure for investigating cases where actions outside the control of the Electrical Contracting Industry have created serious problems for JIB members on particular sites 
Here I must weary the House with a rather long quotation. It goes on to say that
The Electrical Contracting Industry has for many years pursued a policy which establishes realistic wages and conditions, nationally agreed, for its operatives and seeks to make progress in an orderly manner by national awards of wages and by improve ments in security and training, without local bargaining, and by insisting that the Industry's rules are observed.
This policy of responsibility and orderly progress has great advantages, not only for those working within the Electrical Contracting Industry, but also to the community. As a result of this policy, the Client, the national interest and the taxpayer receive considerable protection from escalating costs. It is a policy which could well be emulated in other sectors of industry.
Over the past few years, this responsible policy has come under increasing strain on individual sites where inflation of wage rates amongst other trades, for reasons totally unconnected with productivity or any other


criteria, has placed the more responsible JIB Graded operative at a disadvantage.
It is important that this should be on the record, as I think that we agree that this has been involved in the root cause of what has happened.
It goes on to say:
The JIB is now prepared to examine cases where factual information is available to show that JIB wage levels on a particular site are out of line wtih those paid to other trades. In examining such cases, the JIB will determine the appropriate rate of pay for JIB Graded operatives on the site and will attach whatever conditions it thinks fit to the payment of this rate.
This Determination constitutes a temporary expedient only to meet the exceptional conditions pertaining at the present time. If, and when, industrial relations and wage rates become more rational amongst other trades then this Determination will be discontinued.
At all times, the JIB will insist upon the highest standards of efficiency and the highest standards of responsibility being maintained by its members. In no circumstances will it investigate a case in response to unconstitutional action.
It is important that I should have given that information to the House.
The specific procedure for applications for a site award is also carefully laid down by the Joint Industry Board. Conditions have to be met before an application is entertained, and before an award is made a thorough investigation is carried out.
The JIB Wages Committee, set up following a report on the wages structure by a JIB working party, which recommended that the JIB should depart from its strict enforcement of standard rates and allow site payments to be made to electricians on sites where other craftsmen received high earnings, has made about 10 "determinations", including one for a large Liverpool building site. Large sums have been awarded in almost every case, usually £2–£5 per day, and it can be assumed that the Bootle electricians would have qualified for similar sums if they had returned to work and thus enabled the correct procedure to be carried out.
Last June the hon. Gentleman was good enough to come to see me and explain the situation as it then appeared to him. He said that there appeared to be only two possible solutions for ending the strike—either the replacement of the electrical subcontractors or the award of

a determination by the JIB prior to or immediately on return to work of the electricians on strike. I explained to him at the time that the first course could involve Government intervention in a contract and that the alternative solution would entail the JIB's abandoning its principles for awarding determinations. Neither solution, therefore, appeared attractive. It is not for me to urge a joint negotiating body to renegotiate its agreements because they are opposed by a small group of dissidents. I see no reason for going back on what I said to the hon. Member at the time.
Also in June 1972, with the wider interests of his constituents in mind, the hon. Gentleman made prodigious efforts, for which I pay him due credit, to persuade the unofficial strikers to return to work so that the correct JIB procedure for consideration of a site award could be adopted. This has always been the sensible, and indeed only, solution. His efforts were partially successful in that two electricians employed by one of the two electrical contractors returned to work for a period.
As a result of this action, it was hoped that the remainder of the electricians would return to work so that the JIB would be in a position to reconsider the men's demand for a site award. However, although the JIB committee investigated the application, an award was deferred to allow the return to work of the 15 other electricians. Regrettably, the electricians did not return, and the JlB was not therefore in a position to deal with the claim before 6th November 1972, when the incomes standstill prevented any further increase in wages.
Since last autumn the Department has held a number of meetings, and there has been a good deal of correspondence on the subject of the site. The hon. Gentleman will also recall that in December I urged the electricians to return to work—in response to a Question by the hon. Gentleman, I think. We have always been mindful of the fact that the dispute was one which, for a lasting solution, needed to be settled by the parties concerned. The procedures for settling the dispute are well-established, and recourse to them has always seemed to be entirely appropriate in the case of the IRO site at Bootle. The procedures are available


in such a situation through the industry's own properly agreed constitutional processes.
The situation now is, unfortunately, that the site has for all intents and purposes been closed because no more work can take place, and this has led the main contractor to claim frustration of contract. That matter is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I cannot comment on it tonight. It may be a matter for the courts.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern in the dispute, which I share. We can all understand his regret that work on the site has now stopped following the activity of a handful of men who have failed to follow agreed means

of resolving disputes of this kind and the instructions of their own union.
I agree with at least one of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. He is properly concerned with the employment of his constituents, and mentioned school leavers and some of the older men. We share his concern, and I can only hope that what the hon. Gentleman said touches consciences far beyond this House.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.